The Peeragogy Handbook

Founding Editor
Howard Rheingold

Editorial Board
George Brett, Joseph Corneli, Charles Jeffrey Danoff,
Kyle Larson, Charlotte Pierce, and Paola Ricaurte

with contributions from

Bryan Alexander, Paul Allison, Régis Barondeau,
Doug Breitbart, Suz Burroughs, Teryl Cartwright,
Jay Cross, Julian Elve, María Fernanda Arenas,
James Folkestad, Kathy Gill, John Glass,
John Graves, Jan Herder, Gigi Johnson,
Anna Keune, Roland Legrand, Amanda Lyons,
Christopher Neal, Ted Newcomb, Stephanie Parker,
David Preston, Stephanie Schipper, Peter Taylor,
Fabrizio Terzi, and Geoff Walker

Friday 21st March, 2014 (version 2.01[e])

All the text in this book has been donated to the
Public Domain.
 CONTENTS

F 1

I I 5
1 W! 7
2 H     9
3 C S 13

II P L 19
4 A O 21

III M 41
5 W ’   43
6 C S: 5PH1NX 49

IV P  P 63
7 T   65
8 P 73
9 A 83
10 A   91

V C A G 93
11 C 95
12 P   103
13 K12 P 107
14 P2P SOLE 111
15 A     121

VI O  L C 123

16 O CL 125
17 A  135
18 T    141
19 H  O  MOOC 151
20 C S: C E 159

VII C 169

21 C 171
22 T W 175
23 P 179
24 D   183
25 A   193

VIII A 195

26 P A 197
27 R P 207

IX T, S,  P 215

28 P T 217
29 F 229
30 W 233
31 R M 241
X R 247
32 H    249
33 P  A 253
34 R R 261
35 S G 271
36 M  A 275
37 L/W 285
 FOREWORD

I was invited to lecture at UC Berkeley in January, 2012, and

to involve their faculty and their graduate students in some kind
of seminar, so I      I’   
    - and invited them to help me create
a handbook for self-learners.
I called it the Peeragogy Handbook. I met twice on the Berke-
ley campus in the weeks following the lecture with about a dozen
Berkeley faculty and graduate students. We also had a laptop
open with Elluminate, an online platform that enabled video chat-
ting and text chat, enabling people around the world who were in-
terested in the subject, who I recruited through Twitter and email,
to also participate in this conversation. All of the faculty and grad
students at Berkeley dropped out of the project, but we ended up
with about two dozen people, most of them educators, several of
them students, in Canada, Belgium, Brazil, Germany, Italy, Mex-
ico, the UK, USA, and Venezuela who ended up collaborating on
a voluntary effort to create this Peeragogy Handbook, at peera-
gogy.org. We all shared an interest in the question: “If you give
more and more of your power as a teacher to the students, can’t
you just eliminate the teacher all together, or can’t people take
turns being the facilitator of the class?”
Between the time nine years ago, when I started out using
social media in teaching and learning, clearly there’s been an ex-
plosion of people learning things together online via Wikipedia
and YouTube, MOOCs and Quora, Twitter and Facebook, Google
Docs and video chat, and I don’t really know what’s going to hap-
pen with the institutions, but I do know that this wild learning is
happening and that some people are becoming more expert at it.
I started trying to learn programming this summer, and I
think that learning programming and doing programming must
be very, very different now from before the Web, because now, if

1
you know the right question to ask, and you put it into a search
query, there’s someone out there on StackOverflow who is al-
ready discussing it. More and more people are getting savvy to
the fact that you don’t have to go to a university to have access to
all of the materials, plus media that the universities haven’t even
had until recently. What’s missing for learners outside formal in-
stitutions who know how to use social media is useful lore about
how people learn together without a teacher. Nobody should ever
overlook the fact that there are great teachers. Teachers should
be trained, rewarded, and sought out. But it’s time to expand the
focus on learners, particularly on self-learners whose hunger for
learning hasn’t been schooled out of them.
I think that we’re beginning to see the next step, which is to
develop the methods – we certainly have the technologies, acces-
sible at the cost of broadband access – for self-learners to teach
and learn from each other more effectively. Self-learners know
how to go to YouTube, they know how to use search, mobilize
personal learning networks. How does a group of self-learners
organize co-learning?
In the Peeragogy project, we started with a  and then we
decided that we needed to have a mechanism for people who were
self-electing to write articles on the wiki to say, OK, this is ready
for editing, and then for an editor to come in and say, this is ready
for Wordpress, and then for someone to say, this has been moved
to WordPress. We used a forum to hash out these issues and met
often via Elluminate, which enabled us to all use audio and video,
to share screens, to text-chat, and to simultaneously draw on a
whiteboard. We tried Piratepad for a while. Eventually we settled
on WordPress as our publication platform and moved our most of
our discussions to Google+. It was a messy process, learning to
work together while deciding what, exactly it was we were do-
ing and how we were going to go about it. In the end we ended
up evolving methods and settled on tools that worked pretty well.
We tackled key questions and provided resources for dealing with
them: How you want to govern your learning community? What
kinds of technologies do you want to use, and why, and how to
use them? How are learners going to convene, what kind of re-
sources are available, and are those resources free or what are
their advantages and disadvantages. We were betting that if we
could organize good responses to all these questions, a resource
would prove to be useful: Here’s a resource on how to organize
a syllabus or a learning space, and here are a lot of suggestions
for good learning activities, and here’s why I should use a wiki
rather than a forum. We planned the Handbook to be an open
and growable resource – if you want to add to it, join us! The
purpose of all this work is to provide a means of lubricating the
process of creating online courses and/or learning spaces.
Please use this handbook to enhance your own peer learn-
ing and please join our effort to expand and enhance its value.
The people who came together to create the first edition – few
of us knew any of the others, and often people from three con-
tinents would participate in our synchronous meetings – found
that creating the Handbook was a training course and experiment
in peeragogy. If you want to practice peeragogy, here’s a vehi-
cle. Not only can you use it, you can expand it, spread it around.
Translators have already created versions of the first edition of the
handbook in Spanish, and Italian, and work is in progress to bring
these up to date with the second edition. We’ve recently added a
Portuguese translation team: more translators are welcome.
What made this work? Polycentric leadership is one key.
Many different members of the project stepped up at different
times and in different ways and did truly vital things for the
project. Currently, over 30 contributors have signed the CC Zero
waiver and have material in the handbook; over 600 joined our
Peeragogy in Action community on G+; and over 1000 tweets
mention peeragogy.org. People clearly like the concept of peera-
gogy – and a healthy number also like participating in the process.
We know that this isn’t the last word. We hope it’s a start.
We invite new generations of editors, educators, learners, media-
makers, web-makers, and translators to build on our foundation.

Howard Rheingold
Marin County
January, 2014
 Part I

Introduction
  1

WELCOME TO THE PEERAGOGY HANDBOOK

Welcome to the Peeragogy Handbook!

Peeragogy is a collection of techniques for collaborative learn-
ing and collaborative work. By learning how to “work smart” to-
gether, we hope to leave the world in a better state than it was
when we arrived.
Indeed, humans have always learned from each other. But for
a long time – until the advent of the Web and widespread access
to digital media – schools have had an effective monopoly on the
business of learning. Now, with access to open educational re-
sources and free or inexpensive communication platforms, groups
of people can learn together outside as well as inside formal in-
stitutions. All of this prompted us to reconsider the meaning of
“peer learning.”
The Peeragogy Handbook isn’t a normal book. It is an evolving
guide, and it tells a collaboratively written story that you can help
write. Using this book, you will develop new norms for the groups
you work with — whether online, offline, or both. Every section
includes practical ideas you can apply to build and sustain strong
and exciting collaborations. When you read the book, you will
get to know the authors and will see how we have applied these
ideas: in classrooms, in research, in business, and more.
You’ll meet Julian, one of the directors of a housing associa-
tion; Roland, a professional journalist and change-maker; Char-
lie, a language teacher and writer who works with experimental
media for fun and profit; and Charlotte, an indie publisher who
wants to become better at what she does by helping others learn
how to do it well too — as well as many other contributors from
around the globe.
The book focuses on techniques for convening a strong group,
organizing a learning space, doing cooperative work, and con-
ducting effective peer assessment. These major sections are com-

7
8 W!

plemented by a catalog of design patterns and notes on relevant

technologies.
The next section is a guide to using the book, but, in brief, if
you’re reading this book on peeragogy.org, please use the com-
ment feature to share your thoughts, and if you’re reading it on
paper, get out your pen and start making notes. The best way
to get something out of Peeragogy is to put a lot into it. We are
always interested in more case studies, and anything that will im-
prove the presentation and usefulness of this material, so please
don’t hesitate to get in touch.
  2

HOW TO USE THIS HANDBOOK

This document is a practical guide to co-learning, a living doc-

ument that invites comment and invites readers to join the com-
munity of editors. The document does not have to be read in
linear order from beginning to end. Material about conceptualiz-
ing and convening co-learning – the stuff that helps with getting
started – is located toward the top of the table of contents. Mate-
rial about use cases, resources, and assessment is located toward
the bottom. Hop around if you’d like.
We’ve focused on “hands-on” techniques, and you’ll probably
want to try things out with your own groups and networks as you
read.

• If you want a starter syllabus, check out “Peeragogy in Ac-

tion” in the resources section.

• If you want to delve directly into the research literature, our

initial literature survey forms the basis of a W 
, and the book also includes additional recommended
readings.

• For something lighter, many pages in the online version of

the book include short introductory videos, most of them
under one minute long. You can do a   YT
to find these and many of our other videos all in one place.

This is a living document. If you want to join in, just let us know
in our G+ . (which also happens to have the name
Peeragogy in Action). If you want to test the waters first, feel
free to use the comment thread attached to each page on peer-
agogy.org to suggest any changes or additions, and to share a bit
about your story. We might quote you in future versions of the
book to help improve the resource for others, like this:

9
10 H    

John Glass: Reading through the handbook, it strikes me that

the users will be fairly sophisticated folks. They will have ample
knowledge of various tech platforms, resources, a fair amount of
formal education, access and ability to use a number of different
gadgets. My dilemma is that I am thinking that Peeragogy, at
its most basic, seems to be about facilitating P2P learning. As
such, at its most basic, it would be about assisting people to work
together to learn something (and for me, learning encompasses
virtually all human behavior, with the possible exception of that
controlled by the autonomic nervous system and even there I
am not sure). In other words, I am thinking it is about helping
anyone learn through partnership with others (group A) and yet
the handbook appears to be geared toward a rather specialized
group of people (group B). I guess what I am looking for is
perhaps some clarification on who is the intended audience, A
or B? As it stands, I am unsure how it could realistically apply to
A…Thanks.

Joe Corneli: I think that the best thing to do is to do this in

dialog. In addition to groups A and B, we might need a group C,
who would mediate between the two. The assignment would be
something like this: “Use this to structure the class, and if you
get stuck at any point or if you think the resource isn’t the right
one, ask me for help, and we’ll work on finding other solutions
together.” At the end of the semester, you might have a new and
very different book tailored to this particular “audience” (or “pub-
lic” to use Howard’s term)! That would be cool. The current book
definitely isn’t a one-size-fits-all – I’d say it’s more like a sewing
machine. In fact, I think group C is the real “public” for this book
– not experts, but people who will say: “How can I use the ideas
and the process here to do something new?” What people do with
it will definitely depend on the goal: the model might be Stand and
Deliver or it might be Good Will Hunting or it may be something
very different. Our long-term goal is not to build a 1000 page ver-
sion of the handbook, but to serve as a “hub” that can help many
different peer learning projects. The first question is: How can
we improve the usability for you? Rather than tackling the whole
H     11

book all at once, I would recommend that we start by dialoging

about the “Peeragogy in Action” syllabus at the end. How would
we have to tailor that to suit the needs of your students? With
that in mind, another useful starting point might be our article on
the student authored syllabus. Finally, our motto for the book is:
“This is a How-To Handbook.” We can talk more about anything
that’s confusing and get rid of or massively revise anything that’s
not useful. That’s a super-micro guide to doing peeragogy.
  3

CHAPTER SUMMARIES

Peering into Learning

This is a quick introduction to the main ideas used in the rest of
the book. It provides a range of things to think about as you get
started with a new peer learning project, or as you use peeragogy
to redesign and reassess an existing collaboration. You’ll probably
want to read this first and then do some reflection before diving
into the other parts of the book.

Motivation
You might wonder why we’re doing this project – what we hope
to get out of it as volunteers, and how we think what we’re doing
can make a positive difference in the world. Have a look at this
chapter if you, too, are thinking about getting involved in peera-
gogy, or wondering how peeragogy can help you accelerate your
own learning projects.

Case Study: 5PH1NX. We enjoy riddles with more than one an-
swer, so we’ve included this detailed narrative example of peer-
agogy in action near the beginning of the book. We hope you

13
14 C S

are inspired by the challenge of doing peeragogy in a school set-

ting that is recounted here. Explore this case study for ideas and
encouragement for your own learning adventures.

Patterns, use cases, examples

Here we show you some of the signposts that can serve as both a
key and compass to the kind of social problem solving that hap-
pens in peeragogy projects. If you want some underlying compo-
nents to try out, mix and match these and experiment with peer-
agogy right away. You come back to this chapter for a deeper
understanding of the processes we talk about later on. A detailed
catalog of patterns and anti-patterns that we’ve drawn from our
own practice form a core part of the book.

Convening a Group
You’ll probably want to use this chapter to organize your think-
ing as you start a new peeragogy project or think about how to
apply peeragogy ideas in an existing collaboration. A few clusters
of simple but important questions will inspire unique answers for
you and your group. We hope these mental frameworks are help-
ful to not only initiate progress, but also to maintain momentum.

Play & Learning. What makes learning fun? Just as actors

learn their roles through the dynamic process of performance, In
other words, the more we engage with a topic, the better we learn
it and the more satisfying - or fun - the process becomes.

K-12 Peeragogy. The key to becoming a successful ‘connected

educator-learner’ involves spending the time needed to learn how
to learn and share in an open, connected environment. Once you
make the decision to enter into a dialogue with another user, you
become a connected educator/learner and tap into the power of
networks to distribute the load of learning. Depending on their
age, you can even facilitate an awareness of peer networks among
your students.
C S 15

P2P Self-Organizing Learning Environments. This conversa-

tional section engages you in a journey through diverse points of
entry that interact with your physical learning space. Within this
chapter of word and picture images, the emerging structure and
reciprocal mentoring that may be inspired causes a ripple effect
on those who open the door to its possibilities.

Organizing a Learning Context

We talk about how peer learning is organized into “courses”
and “spaces”, again drawing on our experience in the peeragogy
project. We present the results of an informal poll that reveals
some of the positive and some of the negative features of our early
choices.

Adding Structure with Activities. The first rule of thumb for

peer learning is: announce activities only when you plan to take
part as a fully engaged participant. Then ask a series of ques-
tions: what is the goal, what makes it challenging, what worked
in other situations, what recipe is appropriate, what is different
about learning about this topic?

Student Authored Syllabus. Here’s one place you might ex-

plore to see ways in which freedom in student-directed learn-
ing complements the structural needs for the content and group.
Check this out for various methods to welcome ambiguity and
co-created curriculum into your projects. You may want to start
with one or two ideas in an activity to transition into this format,
yet embracing the risk on a larger scale is fun as well.

Connectivism in Practice. Massive Open Online Courses

(MOOCs) are decentralized online learning experiences: indi-
viduals and groups create blogs or wikis and comment on each
other’s work, often with a focus on where to find information.
A course typically has a topic, activities, reading resources and a
guest speaker for each week. Items are tagged to allow for ag-
16 C S

gregation. Links to technology resources are provided (such as

gRSShopper from Stephen Downes).

Case Study: Collaborative Explorations. You can try out this

chapter to encourage individuals pursuing their own interests in a
predetermined topic while at the same time influencing the learn-
ing of the whole group by sharing and reflecting upon their find-
ings. These interactions of supportive mutual inquiry evolve the
content and structure within a short time frame and with open-
ended results.

Cooperation
Sometimes omitting the figurehead empowers a group. Co-
facilitation tends to work in groups of people who gather to share
common problems and experiences. The chapter suggests how to
co-facilitate discussions, wiki workflows, and live sessions. Con-
ducting an “after action review” helps to avoid blind spots.

The Workscape. In a corporate workscape, people are free-

range learners: protect the learning environment, provide nutri-
ents for growth, and let nature take its course. A workscape fea-
tures profiles, an activity stream, wikis, virtual meetings, blogs,
bookmarks, mobile access and a social network.

Participation. Participation grows from having a commu-

nity of people who learn together, using a curriculum as a
starting point to organize and trigger engagement. Keep in
mind that participation may follow the 90/9/1 principle (lurk-
ers/editors/authors) and that people may transition through these
roles over time.

New Designs For Co-Working And Co-Learning. Designing

for peer learning requires a new approach. A case study dealing
focusing on PlanetMath shows one way to go.
C S 17

Assessment
Asking questions about assessment in the context of the Hand-
book (Who needs to know? Based on what data? In what for-
mat?) suggests “usefulness” (real problems solved) is an appro-
priate metric. We use the idea of return on investment (the value
of changes in behavior divided by the cost of inducing the change)
to assess the peeragogy project itself, as one example.

Researching peeragogy. Three new patterns are introduced

(Frontend and Backend, Spanning Set, and Minimum Viable
Project) which form the basis of a “meta-model” that can be used
to study and design for peer learning.

Technologies, Services, and Platforms

Issues of utility, choice, coaching, impact and roles attach to the
wide variety of tools and technologies available for peer learning.
Keys to selection include the features you need, what people are
already using, and the type of tool (low threshold, wide wall, high
ceilings) used for collaboration.

Forums. Forums are web-based communication media that en-

able groups of people to conduct organized multimedia discus-
sions about multiple topics over a period of time, asynchronously.
A rubric for evaluating forum posts highlights the value of draw-
ing connections. The chapter includes tips on selecting forum
software.

Wiki. A wiki is a website whose users can add, modify, or delete

its content via a web browser. Pages have a feature called “his-
tory” which allows users to see previous versions and roll back to
them. The chapter includes tips on how to use a wiki and select
a wiki engine, with particular attention to peer learning opportu-
nities.
18 C S

Real-time meetings. Web services enable broadband-

connected learners to communicate in real time via audio,
video, slides, whiteboards, chat, and screen-sharing. Possible
roles for participants in real-time meetings include searchers,
contextualizers, summarizers, lexicographers, mappers, and
curators. This mode of interaction supports emergent agendas.

Resources
Here we present several ways to get involved in peer learning,
including information about where to find the Peeragogy project
online, a sample syllabus with four actions bring peer learning to
life, tips on writing for The Handbook, and our Creative Com-
mons Zero 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication.
 Part II

Peer Learning
  4

AN OVERVIEW OF PEER LEARNING

The aim of the Peeragogy Handbook is to establish

effective peer-learning techniques that you can im-
plement “on the ground.” We suggest that you look
through the Handbook, try a few of these sugges-
tions, and see how they work for you. Then we in-
vite you share your experiences, ask for feedback, and
work with us to improve the Handbook and the field
we affectionately call “Peeragogy.”
In this part of the Peeragogy Handbook, we “peera-
gogues” have summarised the most important and
applicable research and insights from two years of
inquiry and discussion. Although there’s been no
shortage of experimentation and formal research into
collaborative, connective, and shared learning sys-
tems in the past, there is a new rumbling among ed-
ucation thinkers that suggests that when combined
with new platforms and technologies, peer-learning
strategies as described here could have a huge im-
pact on the way educational institutions evolve in
the future. We’ve also seen for ourselves how peer-
learning techniques can help anyone who’s inter-
ested to become a more effective informal educator.

The interplay of individual and group

“Personal” supports “peer”. We can consciously cultivate liv-
ing, growing, responsive webs of information, support, and inspi-
ration that help us be more effective learners. This is known as a
personal learning network. We’ll offer tips on how to build these
networks — and we’ll also explain how strong personal learning

21
22 A O

networks can contribute to and evolve into even stronger peer

learning networks.
“Peer” supports “personal”. As we work together to develop
shared plans for our collective efforts in group projects, we usu-
ally can find places where we have something to learn. Further-
more, if we are willing to ask for help and offer our help to others,
everybody’s learning escalates. Being mindful of effective inter-
personal learning patterns is an important part of building an ef-
fective personal learning plan.

Peer learning through the ages

As you will have guessed, our new term, peeragogy, is a riff on
the word pedagogy — the art, science, or profession of teaching.
Pedagogy has a somewhat problematic origin: it comes from the
ancient Greek tradition of having a child (paidos) be supervised
(agogos) by a slave. Greek philosophers seem to have disagreed
about to the best way for individuals to gain knowledge (and even
more so, wisdom). Socrates, who insisted that he was not wise,
also insisted that his interlocutors join him in investigating truth
claims, as peers. And yet, Plato, the most famous of these in-
terlocutors and the best-known author of Socratic dialogs, in his
most famous allegory of the cave, has Socrates say, with a modest
but clearly pedagogical bent:

Socrates: This entire allegory, I said, you may now

append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the
prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the
fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me
if you interpret the journey upwards to be the as-
cent of the soul into the intellectual world accord-
ing to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have
expressed—whether rightly or wrongly God knows.
But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the
world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of
all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is
also inferred to be the universal author of all things
A O 23

beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of

light in this visible world, and the immediate source
of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is
the power upon which he who would act rationally
either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.

In more recent centuries, various education theorists and reform-

ers have challenged the effectiveness of what had become the tra-
ditional teacher-led model. Most famous of the early education
reformers in the United States was John Dewey, who advocated
new experiential learning techniques. In his 1916 book, Democ-
racy and Education [1], Dewey wrote, “Education is not an affair
of ‘telling’ and being told, but an active and constructive process.”
Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky, who developed the concept of
the Zone of Proximal Development, was another proponent of
“constructivist” learning. His book, Thought and Language [2]
also gives evidence to support collaborative, socially meaningful,
problem-solving activities as opposed to isolated exercises.
Within the last few decades, things have begun to change very
rapidly. In “Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital
Age,” George Siemens argues that technology has changed the
way we learn, explaining how it tends to complicate or expose
the limitations of the learning theories of the past [3]. The cru-
cial point of connectivism is that the connections that make it
possible for us to learn in the future are more relevant than the
knowledge we hold individually in the present. Technology can,
to some degree and in certain contexts, replace “know how” with
“know where to look.”
If you want more details on the history, theories, and recent
experiments related to peer learning, we have a more extensive
literature review available. We’ve also adapted it into a Wikipedia
page, which you can edit as well as read.

From peer learning to peeragogy

The idea that we needed a new theory (which we initially gave
the name “paragogy” [4]) arose out of the challenges we faced
24 A O

P C S (1604). By Jan Saenredam [Public do-

main], via Wikimedia Commons

doing peer learning. Our aim was to understand how groups and
organizations can become better at serving participants’ interests,
while participants also learn and become better contributors.
Paragogy began as a set of proposed principles that describe
peer produced peer learning – we’ll say what these principles
are just below. We designed them to contrast with a set guide-
lines for adult educators advanced by Malcolm Knowles [5]. The
paragogy principles focus on the way in which co-learners shape
their learning context together. Very likely, there will be no ed-
ucator anywhere in sight. And just for this reason, peer pro-
duced peer learning is something for “innovative educators” ev-
erywhere. You don’t need to have the word teacher, trainer, or
educator in your job title. It’s enough to ask good questions.
The paragogy principles aim to make that more explicit. They
advocate for an approach to peer learning in which:

1. Changing context is a decentered center.

2. Meta-learning is a font of knowledge.

A O 25

3. Peers provide feedback that wouldn’t be there otherwise.

4. Learning is distributed and nonlinear.

5. You realize the dream if you can, then wake up!

If some of these principles seem a bit ephemeral, it may help to

think of in a more unified manner, as a set of dimensions that
describe possible changes that can take place in peer produced
peer learning [6]:

1. Changing the nature of the space

2. Changing what I know about myself

3. Changing my perspective

4. Changing content or connectivity

5. Changing objectives

Now that we’ve connecting the idea of paragogy to a perspective

focused on the kinds of change that can take place in peer pro-
duced peer learning, it’s time to reveal that our secret for success
is hidden in plain view: the word “paragogy” means “production”
in Greek. We’re particularly interested in how the powerful blend
of peer learning and collaborative work drives open source soft-
ware development, and helps to build resources like Wikipedia.
But in fact it works equally well in offline settings, from official
hacker/maker spaces to garages and treehouses. Projects like S
C show how contemporary media can add a powerful new
layer to ancient strategies for teaching, learning, and sharing.
The word “peeragogy” attempts to make these ideas imme-
diately understandable to everyone, including non-geeks. Peer-
agogy is about peers learning together, and teaching each other.
In the end, the two words are actually synonyms. If you want to
go into theory-building mode, you can spell it “paragogy”. If you
want to be a bit more down to earth, stick with “peeragogy.”
26 A O

References
1. Dewey, J. (2004). Democracy and education. Dover Publi-
cations.

2. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. MIT press.

3. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for

the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Tech-
nology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.

4. Corneli, J. and Danoff, C. J. (2011), Paragogy: Synergiz-

ing individual and organizational learning. (Published on
Wikiversity.)

5. Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult educa-

tion: From pedagogy to andragogy. Chicago: Follett.

6. Corneli, J. and Mikroyannidis, A. (2011). Personalised Peer-

Supported Learning: The Peer-to-Peer Learning Environ-
ment (P2PLE). Digital Education Review 20, 14-23.

Which is more fun, skateboarding or

physics?
Consider the following learning scenarios:

1. A small study group convenes at at the library late one

night, resolving to do well on the next day’s physics exam.
The students manage to deflect their purpose for a while
by gossiping about hook-ups and parties, studying for other
classes, and sharing photos. Then, first one member, then
another, takes the initiative and as a group, the students
eventually pull their attention back to the task at hand.
They endure the monotony of studying for several hours,
and the next day, they own the exam.
A O 27

2. A young skateboarder spends hours tweaking the mechan-

ics of how to make a skateboard float in the air for a split
second, enduring physical pain of repeated wipeouts. With
repetition and success comes a deep understanding of the
physics of the trick. That same student cannot string to-
gether more than five minutes of continuous attention dur-
ing class and spends even less time on homework for the
class before giving up.

Peer-learning participants succeed when they are motivated to

learn. Skateboarding is primarily intrinsically motivated, with
some extrinsic motivation coming from the respect that kids re-
ceive from peers when they master a trick. In most cases, the pri-
mary motivation for learning physics is extrinsic, coming from
parents’ and society’s expectations that the student excel and as-
sure his or her future by getting into a top college.
The student very well could be intrinsically motivated to have
a glowing report card, but not for the joy of learning physics or
chemistry, but because of the motivation to earn a high grade
as part of her overall portfolio. Taken a different way, what is it
about these topics that’s fun for a student who loves science? Per-
haps she anticipates the respect, power and prestige that comes
from announcing a new breakthrough; or she may feel her work
is important for the greater good, or prosperity, of humanity; or
she may simply be thrilled to think about atoms bonding to form
new compounds.
Learning situations frequently bore the learner when extrin-
sic motivation is involved. Whether by parents or society, being
forced to do something, as opposed to choosing to, ends up mak-
ing the individual less likely to succeed. In some cases it’s clear,
but trying to figure out what makes learning fun for a group of in-
dividual humans can be very difficult. Often there is no clear-cut
answer that can be directly applied in the learning environment.
Either way, identifying the factors that can make learning boring
or fun is a good start. Perhaps learning certain skills or topics is
intrinsically boring, no matter what, and we have to accept that.
28 A O

Photo of Dmitri Mendeleev (1834-1907). Found on The Guardian’s

Notes & Theories blog. Public domain.

Learning patterns
One way to think about fun learning is that it’s fun to learn -
and be aware that you’re learning - new patterns. Jürgen Schmid-
huber wrote: “A […] learner maximizes expected fun by finding
or creating data that is better compressible in some yet unknown
but learnable way, such as jokes, songs, paintings, or scientific
observations obeying novel, unpublished laws” [1]. So the skate-
boarder enjoyed coming across new patterns: novel tricks that are
learnable. (By the way, a few people, like mathematician William
Stein, find ways to combine the love of science and skateboard-
ing.)

Learner, know thyself: a self-evaluation technique

The learning contributed and acquired by each member of
the peer learning enterprise depends on a healthy sense of self-
awareness. When you ask yourself, “What do I have to offer?”
and “What do I get out of it?” we think you’ll come up with
some exciting answers. In peer learning, whether or not you’re
pursuing a practical objective, you’re in charge, and this kind of
A O 29

learning is usually fun. Indeed, as we’ll describe below, there are

deep links between play and learning. We believe we can im-
prove the co-learning experience by adopting a playful mindset.
Certainly some of our best learning moments in the Peeragogy
project have been peppered with humor and banter. So we found
that a key strategy for successful peer learning is to engage in a
self-assessment of your motivations and abilities. In this exercise,
you take into account factors like the learning context, timing and
sequence of learning activities, social reinforcements, and visible
reward. The peeragogical view is that learning is most effective
when it contains some form of enjoyment or satisfaction, or when
it leads to a concrete accomplishment.
When joining the Peeragogy project, Charles Jeffrey Danoff
did a brief self-evaluation about what makes him interested in
learning:

1. Context. I resist being groomed for some unforeseeable fu-

ture rather than for a specific purpose.

2. Timing and sequence. I find learning fun when I’m study-

ing something as a way to procrastinate on another press-
ing assignment.

3. Social reinforcement. Getting tips from peers on how to

navigate a snowboard around moguls was more fun for me
than my Dad showing me the proper way to buff the car’s
leather seats on chore day.

4. Experiential awareness. In high school, it was not fun to

sit and compose a 30-page reading journal for Frankenstein.
But owing in part to those types of prior experiences, I now
find writing pleasurable and it’s fun to learn how to write
better.

We will explore the patterns of peer learning in more detail in the

section on practice.
30 A O

Reference
1. Schmidhuber, J. (2010). Formal theory of creativity, fun,
and intrinsic motivation. Autonomous Mental Develop-
ment (IEEE), 2(3), 230-247.

What kind of help do you need?

Personal Learning Networks are the collections of people and
information resources (and relationships with them) that people
cultivate in order to form their own public or private learning
networks — living, growing, responsive sources of information,
support, and inspiration that support self-learners.

Howard Rheingold: “When I started using social me-

dia in the classroom, I looked for and began to learn
from more experienced educators. First, I read and
then tried to comment usefully on their blog posts
and tweets. When I began to understand who knew
what in the world of social media in education, I nar-
rowed my focus to the most knowledgeable and ad-
venturous among them. I paid attention to the peo-
ple the savviest social media educators paid atten-
tion to. I added and subtracted voices from my atten-
tion network, listened and followed, then commented
and opened conversations. When I found something
I thought would interest the friends and strangers I
was learning from, I passed along my own learning
through my blogs and Twitter stream. I asked ques-
tions, asked for help, and eventually started providing
answers and assistance to those who seemed to know
less than I. The teachers I had been learning from had
a name for what I was doing — “growing a personal
learning network.” So I started looking for and learn-
ing from people who talked about HOW to grow a
“PLN” as the enthusiasts called them.”
A O 31

Strong and weak ties

Your PLN will have people and sites that you check on often
– your main sources of information and learning – your ‘strong
ties’. Your ‘weak ties’ are those people and sites that you don’t
allow a lot of bandwidth or time. But they may become strong
later, as your network grows or your interests expand. This is a
two-way street – it is very important that you are sharing what
you learn and discover with those in your network and not just
taking, if you want to see your network expand.

Peer learning networks

As you convene your peer learning group, in one form or an-
other you will develop and share “peeragogical profiles” — adver-
tising what you want to learn, what you’d be interested in help-
ing teach others. If you present yourself and your projects in a
thoughtful and engaging way, this will help you to build effective
connections.
Networks of these connections can span across different sub-
jects, across a city, or across national boundaries. Peeragogy
helps to make sense of the idea of “learning networks” that has
been around since at least the 1970s. Much as theories of peda-
gogy would be relevant for anyone carefully planning an individ-
32 A O

ual learning programme, peeragogy is relevant for self-organized

learning communities operating at larger scales.

How should we structure things?

From syllabus and curriculum to personal and peer
learning plans
Part of the reason for the effectiveness of peeragogy is that the
“syllabus” or “curriculum” – more generally, the learning plan –
is developed by the people doing the learning. You won’t faint
with shock when you see the reading list if you helped write it.
Having youwn own learning plan at the outset helps each par-
ticipant identify his or her unique learning and teaching procliv-
ities and capabilities, and effectively apply them in the peer set-
ting. In developing your personal plan, you can ask yourself the
following questions:

1. What do I most need to learn about in the time ahead?

2. What are the best ways I learn, what learning activities will
meet my learning needs, what help will I need and how long
will it take?

3. What will I put into my personal portfolio to demonstrate

my learning progress and achievements?

Early in the process, the peer learning group should also convene
to develop a peer learning plan. In the Peeragogy project, we used
live meetings and forum-style platforms to discuss the group-level
versions of the questions listed above. Personal learning needs
and skills were also aired via these platforms, but the key shared
outcome was an initial project plan. Initially this took the form
of an outline of handbook chapters to write, as well as a division
of labor.
Nothing was set in stone, and both the peer group and individ-
ual participants have continued to develop, implement, review,
A O 33

and adjust their goals as the project develops. We have stayed

sufficiently connected to the original goal of producing a hand-
book about peer learning that you now have one in your hands
(or on your screen). We’ve also added some new goals for the
project as time has gone by. Having a malleable framework en-
ables peer learners to:

1. Identify appropriate directions and goals for future learn-

ing;

2. Review their strengths and areas for development;

3. Identify goals and plans for improvement;

4. Monitor their actions and review and adjust plans as needed

to achieve their goals;

5. Update the goals to correspond to progress.

This doesn’t mean you have to let chaos rule, but often in the
swirl of ideas and contributions, new directions take shape and
new ideas take hold.

Self-generating templates
Documentation like mind maps, outlines, blogs or journals,
and forum posts for a peer learning project can create an audit
trail or living history of the process. You can mine the documen-
tation of a past peer-learning project or a completed phase of an
ongoing project for effective learning patterns, and if you’re care-
ful to document everything, you can really benefit by taking the
time to compare what you’ve achieved against the stated goal or
mission at the outset. Use the record to reflect and evaluate key
elements of the process for you as a facilitator and as a member
of the peer learning group. Adapt your next phase of planning
accordingly.
34 A O

From corporate training to learning on the job

Today’s knowledge workers typically have instant, ubiquitous
access to the internet. The measure of their ability is an open-
book exam. “What do you know?” is replaced with “What can you
do?” And if they get bored, they can relatively easily be mentally
elsewhere.
This has ramifications for the way managers manage as well
as the way teachers teach. To extract optimal performance
from workers, managers must inspire them rather than command
them. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry put it nicely: “If you want to
build a boat, do not instruct the men to saw wood, stitch the sails,
prepare the tools and organize the work, but make them long for
setting sail and travel to distant lands.”
Jay Cross: “If I were an instructional designer in
a moribund training department, I’d polish up my
resume and head over to marketing. Co-learning
can differentiate services, increase product usage,
strengthen customer relationships, and reduce the
cost of hand-holding. It’s cheaper and more useful
than advertising. But instead of just making a copy
of today’s boring educational practices, build some-
thing based on interaction and camaraderie, perhaps
with some healthy competition thrown in. Again, the
emphasis should always be on learning in order to do
something!”
In the section on organizing a learning context, we’ll say quite a
bit more about the implications that our full conception of peer
learning has for managers, teachers, and other facilitators.

Can we work together on this?

Metacognition and mindfulness in peer learning
Metacognition and mindfulness have to do with your aware-
ness how how you think, talk, participate, and attend to circum-
A O 35

stances. It can be particularly useful to apply this sort of “meta

awareness” as you think about the roles that you take on in a
given project, the kind of contributions you want to make, and
what you hope to get out of the experience. These are all likely to
change as time passes, so it’s good to get in the habit of reflection.

Potential roles in your peer-learning project

1. Leader, Manager, Team Member, Worker

2. Content Creator, Author, Content Processor, Reviewer, Ed-

itor

3. Presentation Creator, Designer, Graphics, Applications

4. Planner, Project Manager, Coordinator, Attendee, Partici-

pant

5. Mediator, Moderator, Facilitator, Proponent, Advocate,

Representative, Contributor

Potential contributions
1. Create, Originate, Research, Aggregate

2. Develop, Design, Integrate, Refine, Convert

3. Write, Edit, Format

Potential motivations
1. Acquisition of training or support in a topic or field;

2. Building relationships with interesting people;

3. Finding professional opportunities through other partici-

pants;

4. Creating or bolstering a personal network;

36 A O

A famous work in ink by Sengai Gibon (1750–1837)

5. More organized and rational thinking through dialog and

debate;

6. Feedback about performance and understanding of the

topic.

The process of shared reflection can prime a group for cohesion

and success. It can be tremendously useful to think about the
motivations of other participants, and how these can be jointly
served. How can we re-use the “side-effects” of individual and
cooperative efforts in a useful way?

Two theories of motivation

One of the most prominent thinkers working in the field of
(self-)motivation is Daniel Pink [1], who proposes a theory of mo-
tivation based on autonomy, mastery, and purpose, or, more col-
orfully:

1. The urge to direct my life

2. The desire to get better at something that matters

A O 37

3. The yearning to do something that serves a purpose bigger

than just “mysel”

There’s clearly a “learning orientation” behind the second point:

it’s not just a matter of “fun” — the sense of achievement matters.
But fun remains relevant. Thomas Malone [2] specifically asked
“What makes things fun to learn?” His proposed framework for
building fun learning activities is also based on the three ingredi-
ents: fantasy, challenge, and curiosity.
We can easily see how “participation” relates to “motivation”
as described above. When I can get useful information from other
people, I can direct my own life better. When I have means of
exploring my dreams by chatting then over and exploring some
of the elements in a safe way, I’m in a much better position to
make something in reality. A solid reputation that comes from
being able to help others serves as a good indicator of personal
progress, a sign that one is able to deal with greater challenges.
Relationships provide the most basic sense of being part of some-
thing bigger than oneself: et cetera. We’ll say more about these
matters in the chapters on Cooperation.

References
1. Pink, D. (2011), Drive: The Surprising Truth About What
Motivates Us, Canongate Books Ltd

2. Malone, T.W. (1981), Toward a Theory of Intrinsically Mo-

tivating Instruction, Cognitive Science, 4, pp. 333-369

How do we know if we’ve won?

Different ways to analyze the learning process
After doing some personal reflection on the roles you want to
take on and the contributions you want to make (as we discussed
above), you may also want to work together with your learn-
ing group to analyze the learning process in more detail. There
38 A O

are many different phases, stages, and dimensions - some sim-

ple and intuitive, others more complex – that you can use to help
structure and understand the learning experience: we list some
of these below. (Detailed references are collected in the recom-
mended readings at the end of the book.)

1. Forming, Norming, Storming, Performing (from Bruce

Tuckman)

2. The “five-stage e-moderating model” (from Gilly Salmon)

3. I, We, Its, It (from Ken Wilber – for an application in mod-

eling educational systems, see [1])

4. Assimilative, Information Processing, Communicative, Pro-

ductive, Experiential, Adaptive (from Martin Oliver and
Gráinne Conole)

5. Guidance & Support, Communication & Collaboration,

Reflection & Demonstration, Content & Activities (from
Gráinne Conole)

6. Considered in terms of “Learning Power” (Ruth Deakin-

Crick et al.)

7. Multiple intelligences (after Howard Gardner)

8. The associated “mental state” (after Mihaly Csíkszentmihá-

lyi; see picture)

Peer learning for one

Can you apply the ideas of peer learning on your own? In a
certain sense, it’s impossible, but somehow that never stops peo-
ple from trying. We find a striking parallel between the paragogy
principles and the 5 Elements of Effective Thinking proposed by
Edward Burger and Michael Starbird in a recent book [2]. It’s a
nice short book and worth a read. Here, we will just quote the
titles of the main chapters:
A O 39

C . S. By w:User:Oliverbeatson (w:File:Challenge

vs skill.jpg) [Public domain]

1. Quintessence, Engaging Change: Transform Yourself

2. Earth, Grounding Your Thinking: Understanding Deeply

3. Air, Creating Questions out of Thin Air: Be your own

Socrates

4. Water, Seeing the Flow of Ideas: Look Back, Look Forward

5. Fire, Igniting Insights through Mistakes: Fail to Succeed

We think that “thinking” is often most effective when it’s done

with others, and this is something that Burger and Starbird don’t
give much attention. Nevertheless, even when you find yourself
on your own in the midst of that challenging DIY project, you
can use the techniques of peer learning to understand yourself as
a growing, changing part of a shared context in motion. This can
contribute to an effective and adaptive outlook on life.
We invite you to approach this book as a “peer learner” – and
we hope the techniques we’ve introduced here will serve you well
40 A O

in the world at large. The book, in part, documents the growth

of our subject as it moved from a critical and basically normative
view to a richer descriptive theory, rooted in a collection strate-
gies for doing emergent design. It’s been fun – and worthwhile
(if also frustrating at times) – working on it. We sincerely hope
you enjoy the rest of the book, but don’t be sparing with your
criticism and creative ideas! You’ll find some further reflections
on these matters in the sections on peeragogical assessment.

References
1. Corneli, J., and Mikroyannidis, A. (2012). Crowdsourcing
education on the Web: a role-based analysis of online learn-
ing communities, in Alexandra Okada, Teresa Conolly, and
Peter Scott (eds.), Collaborative Learning 2.0: Open Educa-
tional Resources, IGI Global.

2. Burger, E. and Starbird, M. (2013). The 5 Elements of Effec-

tive Thinking, Princeton University Press.
 Part III

Motivation
  5

WHY WE’RE DOING THIS

Participants must bring self-knowledge and no small

measure of honesty to the peer-learning project in
order to accurately enunciate their motivations. If
everyone in your peer learning project asks “What
brings me here?” “How can I contribute?” and “How
can I contribute more effectively?” things will really
start percolating. Test this suggestion by asking these
questions yourself and taking action on the answers!

The primary motivators reported by participants in the Peeragogy

project include:

1. Acquisition of training or support in a topic or field;

2. Building relationships with interesting people;

3. Finding professional opportunities through other partici-

pants;

4. Creating or bolstering a personal network;

5. More organized and rational thinking through dialog and

debate;

6. Feedback about their own performance and understanding

of the topic.

We’ve seen that different motivations can affect the vitality of the
peeragogical process and the end result for the individual par-
ticipant. And different participants definitely have different mo-
tivations, and the differences can be surprising: for instance, if
you’re motivated by social image, you may not be so interested

43
44 W ’  

in reciprocity, and vice versa [1]. Motivations come with associ-

ated risks. For example, one may be reluctant to mention busi-
ness aspirations in a volunteer context for fear of seeming greedy
or commercial. Whether or not potential peeragogues eventually
decide to take on the risk depends on various factors. Actions
that typify inappropriate behavior in one culture might represent
desirable behavior in another. Motivations often come out of the
closet through conflict; for example, when one learner feels of-
fended or embarrassed by the actions of another.

Philip Spalding: “The idea of visiting a garden together

in a group to learn the names of flowers might have
been the original intention for forming a Garden Group.
The social aspect of having a day out might be goal of
the people participating.”

“What’s my motivation?”

Example: Peeragogy editor Charlotte

Pierce
Basically, I’m here because as an early adopter and admitted
gadget freak, I find it fun and rewarding to explore new tech-
nologies and topics that I feel have a practical or exciting applica-
tion. But I have some some other motivations that subtly co-exist
alongside my eagerness to explore and learn.
W ’   45

Howard Rheingold’s reputation as an innovator and internet

pioneer got my attention when he announced his Think-Know
Tools course on Facebook in 2012. I had known of Howard from
the 1990’s when I was a member of The WELL (Whole Earth ‘Lec-
tronic Link). I was curious to see what Howard was up to, so
I signed onto the wiki site, paid my $300, and took the course
starting in October.
Looking back, I realize we were practicing Peeragogy
throughout the TKT course, though at the time I hardly knew
peer learning from a pickle. In late November, missing the ca-
maraderie and challenge of TKT, I stepped over to check out the
Peeragogy Handbook.
Which brings me to motivations in signing on to Peeragogy.
Since Howard and several Think-Know Tools co-learners were
already dedicating their time here and their work looked innova-
tive and exciting, I suspected they might be onto something that I
wanted to be a part of. Plus, my brain was primed by the TKT ex-
perience. “What if a diverse group of people could learn a subject
with little or no cost and not a lot of barriers to entry,” I thought.
“What if their own experience qualified them to join, contribute,
and learn.”
I also thought there might be a chance to meet some poten-
tial business partners or clients there - but if not, the experience
looked rewarding and fun enough for me to take the risk of no
direct remuneration. There was no up front cost to me, and a
wealth of knowledge to gain as a part of something new and ex-
citing. These are always big draws for me. I wanted to be in on
it, and nobody was telling me I couldn’t!
My projections proved correct. The participants already on
board were gracious in welcoming me to Peeragogy, patient in
getting me up to speed, and persistent in coaxing me into using
the tools central to the project. I connected, learned, grew, and
contributed. Now I’m on the brink of starting a peer learning
project of my own in my publishing organization, IPNE.org. Stay
tuned!
46 W ’  

Example: Cafes, schools, workshops

Suppose we wanted to make Peeragogy into a model that can
be used in schools, libraries, and so forth, worldwide - and, in fact
we do! How can we bring the basic Peeragogy motivations to
bear, and make a resource, plan of action, and process that other
people can connect with? In brief, how do we build peer learning
into the curriculum,providing new insight from the safety of the
existing structure?
One concrete way to implement these broad aims would be to
make a peeragogy-oriented development project whose goal is to
set up a system of internet cafes, schools, or workshops in places
like China or Africa, where people could go to collaborate on work
or to learn technical subjects. Students could learn on the job. It
seems reasonable to think that investors could make a reasonable
profit through “franchises,” hardware sales, and so forth – and
obviously making money is a motivation that most people can
relate to.
In developing such a project, we would want to learn from
other similar projects that already exist. For example, in Chicago,
State Farm Insurance has created a space called the “N D
C” that runs community events. One of their offerings is free
financial coaching, with the explicit agreement that the issues you
discuss return to State Farm as market research.
State Farm: “Free? Really. Yes, because we’re exper-
imenting. We want to learn what people really want.
Then, we’ll shoot those wants back to the Farm. We
help you. You help us innovate. We’re all smarter for
it. We think it’s a win-win.”
Thus, Next Door Cafe forms part of a system to exploit the side-
effects of interpersonal interactions to create a system that learns.
A peer learning example from the opposite side of the world
started in a slum next to New Delhi where Sugata Mitra gave
children a computer and they self organized into a learning com-
munity and taught themselves how to use the machine and much
more.
W ’   47

Sugata Mitra: I think what we need to look at is we

need to look at learning as the product of educational
self-organization. If you allow the educational pro-
cess to self-organize, then learning emerges. It’s not
about making learning happen. It’s about letting it
happen.

In 2014, we’re going to try a somewhat similar experiment: Can

we build a “P A” for a half-dozen peer
learning projects, each of which defines their own metrics for suc-
cess, but who come together to offer support and guidance, using
the Peeragogy Handbook as a resource?

Reference
1. Jérôme Hergueux (2013). C   P P
 E: E E  W,
talk presented at the Berkman Center for Internet and So-
ciety.

2. Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber (2011). Why do humans

reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory, Behav-
ioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57-111
  6

CASE STUDY: 5PH1NX

5PH1NX: 5tudent Peer Heuristic for 1Nformation

Xchange - we think of it as a “curiously trans-media”
use case in peeragogical assessment.

Author: David Preston

Over the last several decades technology has driven

massive shifts in the way we communicate and col-
laborate. Information technology, socioeconomic
trends, an increasingly complex and uncertain future,
and school’s failed brand are contributing factors in
an emerging discourse that seeks to align learning
with our rapidly changing culture.
Open Source Learning and Peeragogy, two emerg-
ing theoretical frameworks in this discourse, leverage
end-to-end user principles of communication tech-
nology to facilitate peers learning together and teach-
ing each other. In both traditional and liminal learn-
ing communities, one of the major points of contact
between education and societal culture is the pur-
poseful use of assessment. The processes of giving,
receiving, and applying constructive critique makes
learners better thinkers, innovators, motivators, col-
laborators, coworkers, friends, relatives, spouses,
teammates, and neighbors. Implementing peer-based
assessment can be problematic in schooling institu-
tions where evaluative authority is traditionally con-
flated with hierarchical authority, and where eco-
nomic and political influences have focused attention
on summative, quantitative, standardized measure-
ment of learning and intelligence.

49
50 C S: 5PH1NX

This is the story of how one learning community

is adopting Open Source Learning and Peeragogical
principles to decentralize and enrich the assessment
process.
Aldous Huxley: Knowledge is acquired when we suc-
ceed in fitting a new experience into the system of
concepts based upon our old experiences. Under-
standing comes when we liberate ourselves from the
old and so make possible a direct, unmediated con-
tact with the new, the mystery, moment by moment,
of our existence.

Enter 5PH1NX
On Monday, April 2, 2011, students in three English classes at
a California public high school discovered anomalies in the day’s
entry on their course blog. (Reminder: not so long ago this sen-
tence would have been rightly interpreted as being science fic-
tion.) The date was wrong and the journal topic was this:

In The Principles of Psychology (1890), William James

wrote, ”The faculty of voluntarily bringing back a
wandering attention, over and over again, is the very
root of judgment, character and will. No one is com-
pos sui if he have it not. An education which should
improve this faculty would be the education par ex-
cellence.” How have your experiences in this course
helped you focus your attention? What do you still
need to work on? What elements of the following
text (from Haruki Murakami’s 1Q84) draw your at-
tention and help you construct meaning? The driver
nodded and took the money. “Would you like a re-
ceipt?” “No need. And keep the change.” “Thanks
very much,” he said. “Be careful, it looks windy out
there. Don’t slip.” “I’ll be careful,” Aomame said.
“And also,” the driver said, facing the mirror, “please
remember: things are not what they seem.” Things
C S: 5PH1NX 51

are not what they seem, Aomame repeated mentally.

“What do you mean by that?” she asked with knitted
brows. The driver chose his words carefully: “It’s just
that you’re about to do something out of the ordinary.
Am I right? People do not ordinarily climb down the
emergency stairs of the Metropolitan Expressway in
the middle of the day– especially women.” “I suppose
you’re right.” “Right. And after you do something
like that, the everyday look of things might seem to
change a little. Things may look different to you than
they did before. I’ve had that experience myself. But
don’t let appearances fool you. There’s always only
one reality.”

Find the jokers

The jokers were real [4] and hidden (without much intent to
conceal) around the classroom and in students’ journals. Stu-
dents found them and asked questions about the letters in bold;
the questions went unanswered. Some thought it was just an-
other of their teacher’s wild hair ideas. Although they didn’t
know it yet they were playing the liminal role that Oedipus orig-
52 C S: 5PH1NX

inated in mythology. Solving the riddle would enable them to

usher out an old way of thinking and introduce the new. The
old way: An authority figure sets the rules, packages the infor-
mation for a passive audience, and unilaterally evaluates each
learner’s performance. In that context, peeragogical assessment
might be introduced with a theoretical framework, a rubric, and
a lesson plan with input, checks for understanding, and guided
practice as a foundation for independent work. The new way:
In Open Source Learning the learner pursues a path of inquiry
within communities that function as end-to-end user networks.
Each individual begins her learning with a question and pur-
sues answers through an interdisciplinary course of study that
emphasizes multiple modalities and the five Fs: mental Fitness,
physical Fitness, spiritual Fitness, civic Fitness, and technologi-
cal Fitness. Learners collaborate with mentors and receive feed-
back from experts, community-based peers, and the public. They
are the heroes of learning journeys. Heroes don’t respond to syl-
labi. They respond to calls to adventure. Open Source Learning
prepares students for the unforeseen. By the time they met the
5PH1NX students had learned about habits of mind, operating
schema, digital culture and community, self-expression, collabo-
ration, free play, autonomy, confidence/trust/risk, and resilience.
These ideas had been reinforced through nonfiction articles and
literary selections such as Montaigne’s Essays, Plato’s Allegory
of the Cave, Bukowski’s Laughing Heart, Shakespeare’s Ham-
let, Sartre’s No Exit and others. The first poem assigned in the
course was Bukowski’s “L H?”: The Gods will offer
you chances. Know them. Take them. So it is with knowledge and
understanding. Today we are presented with an overwhelming,
unprecedented quantity and variety of data in our physical and
virtual lives; to cope we must improve the ways we seek, select,
curate, analyze, evaluate, and act on information. On the back of
each Joker card was a QR code that linked to a blog page with
riddles and clues to a search. At this point students realized they
were playing a game. A tab on the blog page labeled “The Law”
laid out the rules of engagement:
C S: 5PH1NX 53

This is The Law

1. You cannot “obey” or “break” The Law. You can only make
good decisions or bad decisions.
2. Good decisions lead to positive outcomes.
3. Bad decisions lead to suffering.
4. Success requires humanity.
5. “For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength
of the Wolf is the Pack.” -Rudyard Kipling
6. “The Way of the sage is to act but not to compete.” -Lao Tzu
7. Be honorable.
8. Have fun.
9. Question.
10. Sapere aude.

This is The Law. After a second set of on-campus and blog quests,
students noticed a shift in 5PH1NX. A couple of weeks before the
first clue was published, during a Socratic seminar on Derrida’s
concept of Free Play, a student said, “We learn best when adults
take away the crutches and there is no safety net.”? The quote
was used in the next clue; students began to realize that the game
was not pre-determined. 5PH1NX was evolving in response to
their contributions. This is a manifestation of the hackneyed writ-
ing cliché: show, don’t tell. The student’s comment was a call to
action. The Feats of Wisdom were designed to engage learners
over a vacation break in fun, collaborative, social media-friendly
missions that required engagement in the community, expansion
of their personal learning networks, and documentation on their
blogs. For example:

FEAT #1
Buy a ticket to “The Hunger Games” (or any other movie that’s
likely to draw a large, young, rowdy audience). Before the lights
dim and the trailers begin, walk to the screen, turn to the audience,
54 C S: 5PH1NX

and in a loud, clear voice, recite the “To be, or not to be…” solilo-
quy from Hamlet (don’t worry if you make a couple mistakes, just
be sure you make it all the way to, “Be all my sins remembered.”).
C          . Students
had been using the Internet without an Acceptable Use Policy all
year; such policies are one-to-many artifacts of a central authority
and far weaker than community norms. So rather than introduce
“rules” 5PH1NX simply provided a reminder of the client-side re-
sponsibility.

The Emergence of Peeragogical Assessment

The third page on the Feats of Wisdom blog was entitled
Identifying and Rewarding Greatness, where learners were greeted
with the following paragraph:

If you see something that was done with love, that

pushed the boundaries, set the standard, broke the
mold, pushed the envelope, raised the bar, blew the
doors off, or rocked in some previously unspecified
way, please bring it to the attention of the tribe by
posting a link to it [here].

No one did. Instead, they started doing something more ef-

fective. They started building. One student hacked the entire
game and then created her own version. Other students began
to consider the implications for identifying and rewarding great-
ness. They realized that one teacher couldn’t possibly observe
how 96 students were working over vacation out in the com-
munity and online to accomplish the Feats of Wisdom. In or-
der to get credit for their efforts they would have to curate and
share their work-process and product. They also realized that
the same logic applied to learning and coursework in general; af-
ter all, even the most engaged, conscientious teacher only sees
a high school or college student a few hours a week, under rel-
atively artificial conditions. The learner presumably spends her
whole life in the company of her own brain. Who is the more
C S: 5PH1NX 55

qualified reporting authority? With these thoughts in mind stu-

dents created Project Infinity, a peer-to-peer assessment platform
through which students could independently assign value to the
thoughts and activities they deemed worthy. Because the 2011-12
5PH1NX was a three-week exercise in gamification, Project Infin-
ity quickly evolved to include collaborative working groups and
coursework. This was learner-centered Peeragogical assessment
in action; learners identified a need and an opportunity, they built
a tool for the purpose, they managed it themselves, and they lever-
aged it in a meaningful way to support student achievement in the
core curriculum.

Project Infinity 2 & Implications for the Future

Alumni from the Class of 2012 felt such a strong positive con-
nection to their experience in Open Source Learning and Peer-
agogical assessment that they built a version for the Class of
2013. They created Project Infinity2 with enhanced functional-
ity. They asked the teacher to embed an associated Twitter feed
on the course blog, then came to classes to speak with current
students about their experiences. Everyone thought the Class of
2013 would stand on the shoulders of giants and adopt the plat-
form with similar enthusiasm.
They were wrong. Students understood the concept and po-
litely contributed suggestions for credit, but it quickly became
evident that they weren’t enthusiastic. Submissions decreased
and finally the Project Infinity2 Twitter feed disappeared from the
course blog. Learners’ blogs and project work suggested that they
were mastering the core curriculum and meta concepts, and they
appeared generally excited about Open Source Learning over-
all. So why weren’t they more excited about the idea of assess-
ing themselves and each other? Because Project Infinity2 wasn’t
theirs. They didn’t get to build it. It was handed to them in the
same way that a syllabus is handed to them. No matter how in-
novative or effective it might be, Project Infinity2 was just an-
other tool designed by someone else to get students to do some-
thing they weren’t sure they wanted or needed to do in the first
56 C S: 5PH1NX

place. Timing may also be a factor. Last year’s students didn’t

meet 5PH1NX until the first week in April, well into the spring
semester.
This year’s cohort started everything faster and met 5PH1NX
in November. In January they understood the true potential of
their situation started to take the reins. As students realized what
was happening with the clues and QR codes they approached
the teacher and last year’s alumni with a request: “Let Us In.”
They don’t just want to design learning materials or creatively
demonstrate mastery, they want to chart their own course and
build the vehicles for taking the trip. Alumni and students are
becoming Virtual TAs who will start the formal peer-to-peer ad-
vising and grading process. In the Spring Semester all students
will be asked to prepare a statement of goals and intentions, and
they will be informed that the traditional teacher will be respon-
sible for no more than 30% of their grade. The rest will come
from a community of peers, experts and members of the public.
On Tuesday of Finals Week, 5PH1NX went from five players to
two hundred. Sophomores and freshman have jumped into the
fray and hacked/solved one of the blog clues before seniors did.
Members of the Open Source Learning cohort have also identified
opportunities to enrich and expand 5PH1NX. A series of conver-
sations about in-person retreats and the alumni community led to
students wanting to create a massively multiple player learning
cohort. Imagine 50,000-100,000 learners collaborating and shar-
ing information on a quest to pass an exam by solving a puzzle
that leads them to a “Learning Man Festival” that takes place over
Summer break.
When 5PH1NX players return from Winter Break in January
they will transform their roles relative to the game and the course.
Several have already shared “AHA!” moments in which they dis-
covered ways to share ideas and encourage collaboration and peer
assessment. They have identified Virtual Teaching Assistant can-
didates, who will be coached by alumni, and they have plans to
provide peer-based assessment for their online work. They are
also now actively engaged in taking more control over the col-
laboration process itself. On the last day of the semester, a post-
C S: 5PH1NX 57

finals throwaway day of 30-minute class sessions that adminis-

trators put on the calendar to collect Average Daily Attendance
money, hardly anyone came to campus. But Open Source Learn-
ing students were all there. They have separated the experience
of learning from the temporal, spatial, and cultural constraints of
school. They understand how democracy works: those who par-
ticipate make the decisions. No one knows how this ends, but the
outcome of Peeragogical assessment is not a score; it is learners
who demonstrate their thinking progress and mastery through
social production and peer-based critique. This community’s ap-
proach to learning and assessment has prepared its members for
a complex and uncertain future by moving them from a world of
probability to a world of possibility. As one student put it in a
video entitled “We Are Superman,” “What we are doing now may
seem small, but we are part of something so much bigger than we
think. What does this prove? It proves everything; it proves that
it’s possible.”

Background
A world in which work looks like what’s described in the PSFK
think tank’s F  W R 2013 requires a new learn-
ing environment.
The problem is that tools and strategies such as MOOCs,
videos, virtual environments, and games are only as good as the
contexts in which they are used. Even the most adept practi-
tioners quickly discover that pressing emerging technology and
culture into the shape of yesterday’s curricular and instructional
models amounts to little more than Skinner’s Box 2.0. So what
is to be done? How can we use emerging tools and culture to
deliver such an amazing individual and collaborative experience
that it shatters expectations and helps students forget they’re in
school long enough to fall in love with learning again?
Education in the Information Age should enable learners to
find, analyze, evaluate, curate, and act on the best available in-
formation. Pursuing an interdisciplinary path of inquiry in an
interest-based community doesn’t just facilitate the acquisition
58 C S: 5PH1NX

of factual knowledge (which has a limited half-life). The process

brings learners closer to understanding their own habits of mind
and gives them practice and an identity in the culture they’ll be
expected to join after they graduate. This requires new literacies
and a curriculum that emphasizes mental fitness, physical fitness,
spiritual fitness, civic fitness, and technological fitness.
Models of assessment that emphasize self-directed and col-
laborative Peeragogical principles enrich the learning experience
and accelerate and amplify deep understanding. Because these
approaches are pull-based and generate tens of thousands of
multi- or trans-media data points per learner, they also gener-
ate multi-dimensional portraits of learner development and pro-
vide feedback that goes far beyond strengths and weaknesses in
content retention. The long-term benefit is exponential. Learn-
ers who can intentionally direct their own concentration are em-
powered far beyond knowledge acquisition or skill mastery. They
become more effective thinkers and – because they are invested
– more caring people. This learning experience is of their own
making: it isn’t business, it’s personal. The inspiration to recre-
ate the process for themselves and for others is the wellspring of
the lifelong learner.
As Benjamin Disraeli put it, “In general the most successful
man in life is the man who has the best information.” It is a widely
accepted truism in business that better data leads to better deci-
sions. We now have the ability to generate, aggregate, analyze,
and evaluate much richer data sets that can help us learn more
about helping each other learn. Sharing richer data in different
ways will have the same game changing effect in learning that it
has in professional sports and investment banking.
Self-directed, collaborative assessment generates an unprece-
dented quantity and variety of data that illuminates aspects of
learning, instruction, and overall systemic efficacy. Even a quick
look at readily available freeware metrics, blog/social media con-
tent, and time stamps can provide valuable insight into an indi-
vidual’s working process and differentiate learners in a network.
In the larger scheme of things, Peeragogical assessment pro-
vides direct access to and practice in the culture learners will
C S: 5PH1NX 59

be expected to join when they complete their course of study.

Collaboration, delegation, facilitating conversations, and other
highly valued skills are developed in plain view, where progress
can be critiqued and validated by peers, experts and the public.
But tall trees don’t grow by themselves in the desert. Peera-
gogical innovation can be challenging in organizational cultures
that prioritize control and standardization; as Senge et al. have
observed, the system doesn’t evaluate quality when dealing with
the unfamiliar, it just pushes back. In schools this is so typical that
it doesn’t merit comment in traditional media. The world notices
when Syria goes dark, but in school, restricted online access is
business as usual.
Cultural constraints can make early adopters in technology-
based Peeragogy seem like Promethean risk-takers. Whenever
the author gives a talk or an interview, someone asks if he’s in
trouble.
Learners are not fooled by the rhetoric of in loco parentis or
vision statements that emphasize “safe, nurturing learning envi-
ronments.” With notable exceptions, today’s school leaders do
not know as much about technology as the young people for
whom they assume responsibility. Still, learners understand sur-
vival: they are fighting in unfavorable terrain against an enemy
of great power. Innovating is impossible, and even loudly criti-
cizing school or advocating for change is a risk. As a result many
do just enough to satisfy requirements without getting involved
enough to attract attention. Some have also internalized the crit-
ical voices of authority or the failure of the formal experience as
evidence of their own inability: “I’m just not good at math.”
How do we know when we’re really good at something? Stan-
dardized testing feedback doesn’t help learners improve. Most of
us don’t have a natural talent for offering or accepting criticism.
And yet, as Wole Soyinka put it, “The greatest threat to freedom is
the absence of criticism.”? Peeragogical interaction requires refin-
ing relational and topical critique, as well as skills in other “meta”
literacies, including but not limited to critical thinking, collabora-
tion, conflict resolution, decision-making, mindfulness, patience
and compassion.
60 C S: 5PH1NX

Interpersonal learning skills are undervalued in today’s

schooling paradigm. Consequently there is an operational lack
of incentive for teachers and learners to devote time and energy,
particularly when it carries a perceived cost in achievement on
tests that determine financial allocations and job security. In re-
cent years there has been increasing pressure to tie teacher com-
pensation, performance evaluation, and job status directly to stu-
dent performance on standardized tests.
Some educators are introducing peer-to-peer network lan-
guage and even introducing peer-based assessment. But the con-
tracts, syllabi and letters to students typically stink of the old way.
These one-to-many documents are presented by agents of the in-
stitution endowed with the power to reward or punish. To many
students this does not represent a choice or a real opportunity
to hack the learning experience. They suspect manipulation, and
they wait for the other shoe to drop. Learners also don’t like to be
told they’re free while being forced to operate within tight con-
straints. Consider this likely reaction to a policy that is highly
regarded in the field:

“Students may choose to reblog their work in a public

place or on their own blogs, but do so at their own
risk.”
What? Did I read that correctly?
“Students may choose to reblog their work in a public
place or on their own blogs, but do so at their own
risk.”
Risk? What risk? The risk of possibly helping someone
understand something that they didn’t before, or get a
different opinion than the one they had before? Some-
one please help me make sense of this.

To effectively adopt Peeragogical assessment in the schooling

context, the community must construct a new understanding of
how the members in a network relate to one another independent
of their roles in the surrounding social or hierarchical systems.
C S: 5PH1NX 61

This requires trust, which in school requires significant suspen-

sion of disbelief, which – and this is the hard part – requires actual
substantive, structural change in the learning transaction. This is
the defining characteristic of Open Source Learning: as the net-
work grows, changes composition, and changes purpose, it also
changes the direction and content of the learning experience. Ev-
ery network member can introduce new ideas, ask questions, and
contribute resources than refine and redirect the process.
This isn’t easy. A member in this network must forget what
she knows about school in order to test the boundaries of learning
that shape her relationship to content, peers, and expert sources
of information and feedback. This is how the cogs in the machine
become the liminal heroes who redesign it. Having rejected the
old way, they must now create the rituals that will come to define
the new. They are following in the path of Oedipus, who took on
the inscrutable and intimidating Sphinx, solved the riddle that had
killed others who tried, and ushered out the old belief systems to
pave the way for the Gods of Olympus. Imagine, what if Oedipus
had the Internet.
 Part IV

Peeragogy in Practice
  7

THINKING ABOUT PATTERNS

Although a grounding in learning theory helps in-

form peer learning projects, Peeragogy, at its core,
comes to life in applied practice. Even before conven-
ing a group for your peer learning project, you will
want to take a look over the patterns we have col-
lected here. You will likely return here many times as
your project develops.

What is a pattern?
A pattern is anything that has a repeated effect. In the context
of peeragogy, the practice is to repeat processes and interactions
that advance the learning mission. Frequent occurrences that are
not desirable are called anti-patterns!

Christopher Alexander: “Each pattern describes a

problems which occurs over and over again in our
environment, and then describes the core of the so-
lution to that problem, in a way that you can use this
solution a million times over, without ever doing it
the same way twice.” [1]

Patterns provide a framework that can be applied to similar issues

but may be metaphorically solved in different ways, sometimes in
real world or face to face events and other times in digital space.
Outside of Alexander’s own work in architecture, one the first
groups to adopt a design pattern way of thinking about things
were computer programmers. Writing in the foreward to Richard
P. Gabriel’s Patterns of Software, Alexander emphasizes that the
key question to ask about any design approach is: does it help us
build better?

65
66 T  

Christopher Alexander: “What is the Chartres of

programming? What task is at a high enough level
to inspire people writing programs, to reach for the
stars?” [2]

We think that Peeragogy stands a good chance of being a “killer

app” for pattern-based design. Learning bridges physical and vir-
tual worlds all the time. And, in fact, a Network of Learning was
the 18th pattern that Christopher Alexander introduced in his
book, A Pattern Language.

Christopher Alexander: “Work in piecemeal ways

to decentralize the process of learning and enrich it
through contact with many places and people all over
the city: workshops, teachers at home or walking
through the city, professionals willing to take on the
young as helpers, older children teaching younger
children, museums, youth groups travelling, schol-
arly seminars, industrial workshops, old people, and
so on.” [1]

Peeragogy can help to extend and enrich this network, and, as we

shall see, patterns can be used by those involved to do ongoing
“emergent” design, not only by building new structures, but by
adapting and improving our catalog of patterns as we go.

Patterns of peeragogy
Here is our index of the main patterns we’ve found so far (de-
scribed in more detail after the jump):

• Wrapper - Front end appearance to participants. Consoli-

date and summarize.
• Discerning a pattern - Found a pattern? Give it a title and
record an example. (Woah, meta!)
• Polling for ideas - Invite brainstorming, collecting ideas,
questions, and solutions.
T   67

• Creating a guide - Overviews expose the lay of the land.

Collecting content and stories.
• Newcomer - Create a guide for “beginner’s mind” and help
avoid need to introduce new members each “meeting.”
• Roadmap - Plans for future work, direction towards a goal,
dynamic
• Roles - Specialize and mix it up. Play to participants
strengths and skills.
• Project focus - Lightbulb moment: Most specific projects
involve learning!
• Carrying capacity - Know your limits, find ways to get
other people involved.
• Heartbeat - The “heartbeat” of the group keeps energy
flowing.
• Moderation - When leaders step back, dynamics can im-
prove; moderator serves as champion and editor.
• Use or make? - Repurposing, tinkering, or creating from
scratch?

We’ll introduce three additional patterns in the chapter on re-

searching peeragogy.

Anti-patterns for Peeragogy

And some “anti-patterns” (things to avoid if possible):

• Isolation - A tale of silos, holes, and not-invented-here.

• Magical thinking - “One meeting will (not) change every-
thing!”
• Messy with Lurkers - What happens when joining is low-
cost and completion is low-benefit.
68 T  

• Misunderstanding Power - The workload is almost never

evenly distributed.

• Navel Gazing - “I have this really great idea…”

• Stasis - What is the driver behind open source, commons-

oriented collaborative projects? (Because, let’s face it, it
doesn’t always work.)

• Stuck at the level of weak ties - Can we deepen the con-

nection?

What is a use case?

A use case describes someone (or something) who uses a given
system or tool to achieve a goal. A use case can include a title, a
summary of the problem, an actor, and a success scenario. Ad-
ditional features can be added, such as alternate interactions or
choices that lead to a variation on the result.
The use case considers a given persona (a characteristic
role) in a given situation and shows how they works on a
project/problem and how their process of work is resolved into
a solution or solutions. Some activities do not have a single so-
lution – these are often referred to as “Wicked Problems.” With
detailed bookkeeping effort, recorded processes can be standard-
ized into use cases that can then be employed directly or modified
to fit the context of the activity at hand. In short, they are a lot
like design patterns, which they may contain in hidden or explicit
form. Use cases are presented in vignettes that appear throughout
the book (like the one at the end of this section).

A peeragogy pattern language

By looking at how patterns combine in real and hypothetical
use cases, you can start to identify a pattern language that can
be used in your projects. We can get a simplified view of these
connections with the following diagram. It’s important to clarify
that everyone doesn’t do it the same way. Here, the Roadmap
T   69

is given a central position, but some peer learning projects will

forego making a specific, detailed plan; their plan is just to see
what develops. You can see here how peeragogy patterns often
break down further into individual micro-steps: we’ll say more
about that shortly.

The subsequent main sections of this book – Convene, Orga-

nize, Cooperate and Assess – represent big clusters of patterns that
are likely to come up time and again in various projects. We can
think of these as East, South, West, and North in the diagram
above. You are of course encouraged to invent your own patterns
and to connect them in new ways. Each project has a unique de-
sign, and it’s own unique way in which things play out in practice.
What we’ve put together here is a starter kit.

Christopher Alexander: These ideas—patterns—are

hardly more than glimpses of a much deeper level of
structure, and is ultimately within this deeper level of
structure, that the origin of life occurs. [2]

Patterns and Problem Solving

Ten potentially useful things to do when you’re solving a
problem are described by the computer scientist Marvin Minsky
in a series of  written for the One Laptop Per Child project.
We can sum them up visually with the following diagram:
We can also see some interesting connections between these
intuitive problem solving heuristics and peeragogy patterns listed
70 T  

above. This can help illustrate further connections between the

patterns, and some of the ways that groups can apply them to
solve real-world problem. To elaborate briefly:

• Simplify things for Newcomers. We don’t expect a new-

comer to enter at full speed.

• Use a Roadmap to guide us from one phase to another,

while the project’s central Heartbeat helps us attend to the
central focus.

• Announce changes through a Wrapper who describes the

new status or direction of the project. For the Peeragogy
project, that often meant summing up the high points that
we saw over a given period of time.

• We divide work up not only horizontally among different

Roles, but also temporally by using the Roadmap. Some-
one who is moving ahead with the Roadmap is likely to be
working at the leading edge.

• When we find an analogy, we are basically Creating a

Guide for thinking about something. This can be used as
T   71

a form of “exploration,” as we look at how one form of en-

gagement may or may not map onto other forms of engage-
ment.

• When we ask for help, we may avail ourselves of some

Moderation service that will decide how to deal with our
request. One simple way to ask for help is Polling for Ideas.
Obviously once we start to get help, we’re working in a
regime of “collaborative effort”.

• If you know the answer, then you may be able to reuse it

(which is the basic idea described in Use or Make.

• It is important to give it a rest so as not to over-exhaust

oneself, busting one’s own Carrying Capacity, or, alterna-
tively, overwhelming the group.

• It seems that one of the things that experts are good at is

Discerning a Pattern. This allows them to simplify their
processing.

• Finally, again, if we know why it is hard, then we may be

able to Create a Guide that will help get around, or at least
better cope with, the difficulty.

References
1. Alexander, Christopher, Ishikawa, Sara, and Silverstein,
Murray, A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, and, Con-
struction, New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

2. Gabriel, Richard P. P  S, New York: Ox-

ford University Press, 1996. (Includes a forward by Christo-
pher Alexander.)
  8

PATTERNS

Wrapper
Early on, active peeragogue Charlie Danoff  that
someone take on the “wrapper role” – do a weekly pre/post wrap,
so that new users would know the status the project is at any
given point in time. The project’s   also serves as an-
other sort of “wrapper”. We check the public summaries of the
project from time to time to make sure that they accurately rep-
resent the facts on the ground. Note that in its various forms, the
“wrapper role” plays an important integrative function.
According to the theory proposed by Yochai Benkler, for
free/open “commons-based” projects to work, it is vital to have
both (1) the ability to contribute small pieces; (2) something that
stitches those pieces together [1]. In the first year of the Peera-
gogy project, the “Weekly Roundup” by Christopher Tillman Neal
served to engage and re-engage members. Peeragogues began to
eager watched for the weekly reports to see if our teams or our
names had been mentioned. When there was a holiday or break,
Chris would announce the hiatus, to keep the flow going.
In the second year of the project, we didn’t routinely publish
summaries of progress, and instead, we’ve assumed that inter-
ested parties will stay tuned on Google+. Nevertheless, we main-
tain internal and external summaries, ranging from agendas to
press releases to quick-start guides. Regular meetings provide an
alternative way to stay up to date: see the Heartbeat pattern.

Reference
1. Benkler, Y. (2002). Coase’s Penguin, or Linux and the Nature
of the Firm, Yale Law Journal 112, pp. 369-446.

73
74 P

Discerning a Pattern
Discerning patterns helps us build our vocabulary or reper-
toire for peer-learning projects. As a very simple example, in
building a peer learning profile, a participant might identify an
interest such as organic gardening. We begin to notice that this
is a pattern when it repeats – when organic gardening is fre-
quently listed among the interests listed by participants in their
self-introductions. The classic example of an architectural pat-
tern is “A place to wait” —a type of space found in many architec-
tural and urban design projects. Once a pattern is detected, give
it a title and write down how the pattern works. For example,
what does this pattern say about the self-selection process of the
group? Without jumping to conclusions, consider that an inter-
est in organic gardening, for example, might indicate the partic-
ipants are oriented to cooperation, personal health, or environ-
mental activism. How does the pattern relate to other patterns
already listed in this catalog?

Polling for Ideas

… and then Howard said: “At the beginning, until we all know
the ropes well enough to understand when to create a new dis-
cussion forum topic and when to add to an existing one, let’s talk
in this topic thread about what else we want to discuss and I
will start new topic threads when necessary.” Polling for Ideas
can happen at many junctures in a peer learning experience. We
could poll for ideas like “what’s missing?”, “who might like to join
our group?”, and “what are the right tools and resources for us to
use at this point?”

Creating a Guide
Meaning-carrying tools, like handbooks or maps, can help
people use an idea. In particular, when the idea or system is only
P 75

“newly discovered”, the associated meanings may not be well un-

derstood (indeed they may not have been created). In such a case,
the process of creating the guide can go hand-in-hand with fig-
uring out how the system works. Thus, techniques of 
  and   are useful for would-
be guide creators. Even so, it is worth noting that “the map is not
the territory,” and map-making is only one facet of shared human
activity. Collaboratively refining a pattern is itself an example of
“Creating a Guide” - that is, a pattern description can be thought
of as a “micro-map” of a specific activity.

Newcomer
Unless there is a new person to talk to, a
lot of the “education stuf” we do could
grow stale. Many of the patterns and use
cases for peeragogy assume that there
will be an audience or a new generation
of learners - hence the drive to create a
guide. Note that the newcomer and the
wrapper may work together to make the
project accessible. Even in the absence
of actual newcomers, we’re often try to
look at things with a “beginner’s mind.”

Régis Barondeau: I joined this handbook project late,

making me a “newcomer”. When I started to catch up,
I rapidly faced doubts: Where do I start? How can I
help? How will I make it, having to read more than 700
posts to catch up? What tools are we using ? How do I
use them? Etc. Although this project is amazingly in-
teresting, catching the train while it already reached
high speed can be an extreme sport. By taking care
of newcomers, we might avoid loosing valuable con-
tribuors because they don’t know how and where to
start, and keep our own project on track.
76 P

Charlotte Pierce: Joe was working a lot on the book,

and I thought “this is interesting hard work, and he
shouldn’t have to do this alone.” As a Peeragogy new-
comer, I was kindly welcomed and mentored by Joe,
Howard, Fabrizio, and others. I asked naive questions
and was met with patient answers, guiding questions,
and resource links. Concurrently, I bootstrapped my-
self into a position to contribute to the workflow by
editing the live manuscript for consistency, style, and
continuity.

Roadmap
It is very useful to have an up-to-date public roadmap for the
project, a place where it can be discussed and maintained. This
helps newcomers see where they can jump in. It also gives a sense
of the accomplishments to date, and any major challenges that lie
ahead. Remember, the Roadmap exists as an artifact with which
to share current, but never complete, understanding of the space.
Never stop learning!

Examples
In the Peeragogy project, once the book’s outline became
fairly mature, we could use it as a roadmap, by marking the sec-
tions that are “finished” (at least in draft), marking the sections
where editing is currently taking place, and marking the stubs
(possible starting points for future contributors). After this out-
line matured into a real table of contents, we started to look in
other directions for ways to build on our successes to date, and
started working on a roadmap for further development of the
website and peeragogy project as a whole.

And also
Note that a shared roadmap is very similar to a Personal
Learning Plan, or “paragogical profile”. We’ve made some 
P 77

 of these as we got started working on the Free Technology

Guild.
There is a certain roadmappiness to “presentation of sel”, and
you can learn to use this well. For instance, when introducing
yourself and your work to other people, you can focus on high-
lights like these:

• “What is the message behind what you’re doing?”

• “How do you provide a model others can follow or improve
upon?”
• “How can others get directly involved with your project?”

Roles
This may seem like an obvious one, but educational interac-
tions tend to have a number of different roles associated with
them. Consider that everything could bifurcate from the “autodi-
dact”:
1. Autodidact 2. Tutor-Tutee 3. Tutor-Tutee-Parent 4. Tutor-
Tutee-Parent-Principal etc. —
Until we have bursars, librarians, technicians, janitors, editors
of peer reviewed research journals, government policy makers,
spin-off industrial ventures and partnerships, etc., all involved in
Education. Even the autodidact may assume different roles at dif-
ferent points in time - sometimes making a library run, sometimes
constructing a model, sometimes checking a proof. The decompo-
sition of “learning” into different phases or polarities could be an
endless theoretical task. For the moment, we just note that roles
are often present “by default” at the start of a learning process,
and that they may change as the process develops.

Focusing on a specific project

In the Jan. 2013 plenary session, as I P
  N E (IPNE) President Tordis Isselhardt quietly
78 P

listened to a presentation about how we created the Peeragogy

Handbook. During the Q&A, he spoke up, wondering if peer-
learning effort in IPNE might be more likely to succeed if the or-
ganization’s members “focused around a specific project.” As this
lightbulb illuminated the room, those of us attending the plenary
session suggested that IPNE could focus the project by creating
an “Independent Publishing Handbook.” (Applause!)
In the course of creating the IPNE Handbook, peer learners
would assemble resource repositories, exchange expertise, and
collaboratively edit documents. To provide motivation and incen-
tive to participate in “PeerPubU”, members of the association will
earn authorship credit for contributing articles, editor credit for
working on the manuscript, and can spin off their own chapters
as stand-alone, profit-making publications.

Carrying Capacity
Alvin Toffler: If overstimulation at the sensory level
increases the distortion with which we perceive re-
ality, cognitive overstimulation interferes with our
ability to ‘think.’

At times, a facilitator or participant in the peer-learning enter-

prise may feel he or she is over-contributing – or, perhaps more
likely, that others are under-contributing – or that someone else
is railroading an idea or dominating the discussion. If this hap-
pens, take a step back and observe the dynamics of involvement.
Ask questions and let others answer. Especially if you start to feel
the symptoms of burnout, it’s important that you find the level of
engagement that allows you to participate at a level that is feasi-
ble for maintaining progress toward the project’s goal. Lead by
example – but make sure it’s someplace you, and others, actu-
ally want to go! This could be a good time to revisit the group’s
roadmap and see if you can figure out and clarify to others what
concrete goal you’re working towards. Remember that you can
also change the “landscape” by making it easier for other people
P 79

to get involved – for example, by explaining what you’re trying

to do in a clear manner. Watch for opportunities to step back,
watch, listen. Try to be mindful of phases when active or quiet in-
volvement would be more helpful to the individual and the group.
It’s also helpful to let anyone who has taken on a facilitation role
know if you’re stepping back temporarily. Then, when the time
is right, step back in and get to work!

Heartbeat
Without someone or something acting as the “heartbeat” for
the group, energy may dissipate. In the “Collaborative Lesson
Planning” course led by Charlie Danoff at P2PU, Charlie wrote
individual emails to people who were signed up for the course
and who had disappeared, or lurked but didn’t participate. This
kept a healthy number of the people in the group to reengage and
make positive contributions. In more recent months, Charlotte
Pierce has been running weekly meetings by Google Hangout to
coordinate work on the Peeragogy Handbook. Not only have we
gotten a lot of hands-on editorial work done this way, we’ve gen-
erated a tremendous amount of new material (both text and video
footage) that is likely to find its way into future versions of the
book.

Moderation
The Co-Intelligence Institute: Why is a fishbowl
more productive than debate? The small group con-
versations in the fishbowl tend to de-personalize the
issue and reduce the stress level, making people’s
statements more cogent. Since people are talking
with their fellow partisans, they get less caught up
in wasteful adversarial games.

Participation in online forums tends to follow a “power law,” with

vastly unequal engagement. If you want to counteract this ten-
80 P

19th century collage cards, care of N H

dency, one possibility would simply be for the most active par-
ticipants to step back, and moderate how much they speak. This
is related the the Carrying Capacity pattern and the Misunder-
standing Power anti-pattern: check those out before you proceed.
Occupy Wall Street used a related technique that they called the
“ .” There are lots of other strategies to try.

Use or Make?
“Praxis, a noble activity, is always one of use, as dis-
tinct from poesis which designates fabrication. Only
the former, which plays and acts, but does not pro-
duce, is noble.” [1] (p. 101)

There is a tension between “making stuf” (poesis) and “using

stuf” (praxis). Peer production, as the name indicates, is about
“making stuff.” And making stuff can be fun. But we should also
ask ourselves, how much new stuff do we really need? There’s not
a hard and fast answer to that. We should also consider how much
P 81

“learning” is really “remix” – that is, re-use and recycling of other

people’s ideas and techniques. Understanding and negotiating the
tension between reuse and creativity is the key to the art of remix
or “paragogical praxis”!

Reference
1. Baudrillard, J. (1975). The mirror of production. Telos Press
  9

ANTIPATTERNS

Isolation
Félix Guattari: Imagine a fenced field in which there
are horses wearing adjustable blinkers, and let’s say
that the “coefficient of transversality” will be pre-
cisely the adjustment of the blinkers. If the horses
are completely blind, a certain kind of traumatic en-
counter will be produced. As soon as the blinkers are
opened, one can imagine that the horses will move
about in a more harmonious way. (Q  A
 M, himself quoting Gary Genosko)

From a design point of view: we should be conscious of in-

terfaces that are “too loud”, and think about how that is compen-
sated for by isolation of various forms. With a too-narrow focus,
collaboration is impossible. However, with an overly-wide focus,

83
84 A

things are chaotic in other ways (see Co-Learning: Messy with

Lurkers).
This anti-pattern sometimes goes by the name Not Invented
Here. Many projects that are ostensibly oriented towards “the
commons” nevertheless want to funnel participants into “their
way” of thinking about things. Be careful with that. Learning
how to manage the uncertainty that comes with experimentation
is part of what makes the postmodern organization tick! (See also:
Navel Gazing.)

Magical thinking
While we could imagine an ideal information processing sys-
tem that would (magically) come with all solutions pre-built, a
more realistic approach recognizes that real problem solving al-
ways takes time and energy. For instance, if we “knew”, 100%,
how to do peeragogy, then we would not stand to learn very much
by writing this handbook. Difficulties and tensions would be re-
solved “in advance”. The relevant problem solving approach and
associated “learning orientation” will depend on the task and re-
sources at hand.
Magical thinking of the kind described above robs a context
of its “process” or “motion”. The more structure we have in ad-
vance, the more completely we fall back on “traditional” modes
of doing things, and the less we stand to learn. It’s also true that
traditions and habits can serve a useful function: they can mas-
sively simplify and streamline, and adopting some healthy habits
can free up time and energy, making learning possible [1]. But
it’s still going to take work. Time for a few deep breaths?

Reference
1. Dias-Ferreira, Eduardo, et al. “Chronic stress causes fron-
tostriatal reorganization and affects decision-making.” Sci-
ence 325.5940 (2009): 621-625.
A 85

Messy with Lurkers

Gigi Johnson: (1) Co-learning is Messy. It needs
time, patience, confusion, re-forming, re-norming,
re-storming, etc. Things go awry and part of norms
needs to be how to realign. (2) Co-learning is a
VERY different experience from traditional teacher-
led learning in terms of time and completion. It is
frustrating, so many people will lurk or just step in
and out, the latter of which is very different from
what is acceptable in traditonal learning. Online
learning programs are painted with the brush now of
an “unacceptable” 50% average non-completion rate.
Stanford’s MOOC AI class, which started out with
+100,000 people, had 12% finish. If only 12% or 50%
of my traditional class finished, I’d have a hard time
getting next quarter’s classes approved!

The second point is similar to the earlier Anti-pattern “M

 P (L)”. People have to join in order to
try, and when joining is low-cost, and completion low-benefit,
it is not surprising that many people will “dissipate” as the course
progresses. The “messiness” of co-learning is interesting because
it points to a sort of “internal dissipation”, as contributors bring
their multiple different backgrounds, interests, and communica-
tion styles to bear.

Tomlinson et al.: More authors means more con-

tent, but also more words thrown away. Many of
the words written by authors were deleted during the
ongoing editing process. The sheer mass of deleted
words might raise the question of whether authoring
a paper in such a massively distributed fashion is ef-
ficient. [1]

If we were to describe this situation in traditional subject/object

terms, we would say that peer production has a “low signal to
86 A

noise ratio”. However, it may be more appropriate (and construc-

tive) to think of meanings as co-constructed as the process runs,
and of messiness (or meaninglessness) as symptomatic, not of
peer production itself, but of deficiencies or infelicities in shared
meaning-making and “integrating” features.

Reference
1. Tomlinson, B., Ross, J., André, P., Baumer, E.P.S., Patter-
son, D.J., Corneli, J., Mahaux, M., Nobarany, S., Lazzari,
M., Penzenstadler, B., Torrance, A.W., Callele, D.J., Olson,
G.M., Silberman, M.S., Ständer, M., Palamedi, F.R., Salah,
A., Morrill, E., Franch, X., Mueller, F., Kaye, J., Black,
R.W., Cohn, M.L., Shih, P.C., Brewer, J., Goyal, N., Näkki,
P., Huang, J., Baghaei, N., and Saper, C., M D
 A  A P, Proceedings
of Alt.Chi, Austin Texas, May 5–10 2012 (10 page extended
abstract), ACM, 2012,

Misunderstanding Power
Wikipedia: Zip’s law states that given some corpus
of natural language utterances, the frequency of any
word is inversely proportional to its rank in the fre-
quency table. Thus the most frequent word will oc-
cur approximately twice as often as the second most
frequent word, three times as often as the third most
frequent word, etc. [1]

Zip’s law (or other formulations of the same thing) govern the
  , and related formulations describe  :
roughly speaking, an elephant has a lower metabolism than a
mouse and is more “energy efficient”. At that same link, we see
the suggestion that creativity and other social network effects
speed up as population grows! The anti-pattern: how many times
have we been at a conference or workshop and heard someone
say (or said ourselves) “wouldn’t it be great if this energy could
A 87

be sustained all year ’round?” Or in a classroom or peer produc-

tion setting, wondered why it is that everyone does not partici-
pate equally. “Wouldn’t it be great if we could increase partici-
pation?” But participation in a given population is going falls off
according to some power law (see Introduction to Power Laws in
T U P, V II, I 3). It would be a
grand illusion to assume that everyone is coming from a similar
place with regard to the various literacies and motivations that are
conducive to participation. Furthermore, a “provisionist” attitude
(“If we change our system we will equalize participation and ac-
cess”) simply will not work in general. Power laws are an inherent
epiphenomenon of network flow. Certainly, if you can moderate
the way the network is shaped, you can change the “exponent” –
for example, by helping more people develop relevant literacies.
But even so, “equality” remains a largely abstract notional. Note,
as well, that participation in a given activity tends to fall off over
time. Many people would like to write a hit song or a best selling
novel or start a religion, etc., but few actually do, because it takes
sustained effort over time. See the anti-pattern “Magical Think-
ing” for more on this. Our ability to develop new literacies is lim-
ited. Much as Paul Graham wrote about programming languages
– programmers are typically “satisfied with whatever language
they happen to use, because it dictates the way they think about
programs” – so too are people often “satisfied” with their social
environments, because these tend to dictate the way they think
and act in life.

Reference
1. Z’ . (2013). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

2. Graham, P. (2001). B  .

Navel Gazing
The difficulty I am referring to breaks down like this:
88 A

1. Certainly we cannot get things done just by talking about

them.

2. And yet, feedback can be useful, i.e., if there are mecha-

nisms for responding to it in a useful fashion.

3. The associated anti-pattern is a special case of the prototyp-

ical Bateson  , “the father who says to his son:
go ahead, criticize me, but strongly hints that all effective
criticism will be very unwelcome” [1], p. 88.

And indeed – criticism is not always useful. Sometimes it is just

“noise”. The art of paragogical praxis is to make something use-
ful out of what would otherwise just be noise. (And, note, we
have hinted that for this project, effective criticism will be very
welcome!)

Reference
1. Deleuze, G., and Guattari, F. (2004). Anti-oedipus. Contin-
uum International Publishing Group.

Stasis
Actually, living beings are never really in stasis. It just some-
times feels that way. Different anti-patterns like I or
NG have described different aspects of the experience
of feeling like one is in stasis. Typically, what is happening in
such a case is that one or more dimensions of life are moving
very slowly.
For instance, we were not able to get programming support
to improve the first version of the Social Media Classroom, for
love or money, since all developer energy was going into the next
version. This isn’t true stasis, but it can feel frustrating when a
specific small feature is desired, but unavailable.
The solution? Don’t get hung up on small things, and find
the dimensions where movement is possible. In a sense this is
A 89

analogous to eating a balanced diet. You probably shouldn’t only

eat grilled cheese sandwiches, even if you like them a lot. You
should go for something different once in a while.
This is also related to the pattern that talks about “C
C”. There is always some dimension on which you can
make progress – it just might not be the same dimension you’ve
recently over-harvested!

Stuck at the level of weak ties

Knowing how to make good use of “weak ties” is often seen
as a strength.

Nancy Darling: [S]trong and weak ties tend to serve

different functions in our lives. When we need a big
favor or social or instrumental support, we ask our
friends. We call them when we need to move a wash-
ing machine. But if we need information that we
don’t have, the people to ask are our weak ties. They
have more diverse knowledge and more diverse ties
than our close friends do. We ask them when we want
to know who to hire to install our washing machine.
[1]

The quote suggests that there is a certain trade-off between use of

weak ties and use of strong ties. The anti-pattern in question then
is less to do with whether we are forming weak ties or strong ties,
and more to do with whether we are being honest with ourselves
and with each other about the nature of the ties we are forming
– and their potential uses. We can be “peers” in either a weak or
a strong sense. The question to ask is whether our needs match
our expectations! In the peeragogy context, this has to do with
how we interact.

One of us: I am learning about peeragogy, but I think

I’m failing to be a good peeragogue. I remember that
Howard once told us that the most important thing
90 A

is that you should be responsible not only for your

own learning but for your peers’ learning. […] So the
question is, are we learning from others by ourselves
or are we helping others to learn?

If we are “only” co-consumers of information then this seems like

a classic example of a weak tie. We are part of the same “audi-
ence”. On the other hand, if we are actively engaging with other
people, then this is a foundation for strong ties. In this case of
deep learning, our aims are neither instrumental nor informa-
tional, but “interactional”. People who do not put in the time and
effort will remain stuck at the level of “weak ties”, and will not be
able to draw on the benefits that “strong ties” offer.

Reference
1. Nancy Darling (2010). F   S 
W T, Psychology Today.
  10

A PATTERN STORY

October, 2011. Tom’s day-job involves finding patterns in mar-

ket data (see K S’ TED ). He reads philosophy and
does some other programming work in his spare time. However,
he doesn’t take the Occupy Wall Street protest very seriously. But
one of these evenings, one of the protestors catches his attention.
She’s dressed rather strikingly. They talk, and he comes away
thinking about something she said: “A   
.” What if all the solutions are interconnected
too? Night time: Tom becomes increasingly obsessed with this
idea. He’s pulling down lots of web pages from the internet —
again, looking for patterns. What would it take for OWS folks to
solve the problems they worry so much about? He starts working
on a tool that’s geared towards learning and sharing skills, while
working on real projects. At first, it’s just hackers who are using
the tool, but over time they adapt it for popular use. Things start
to get interesting…

91
92 A  

M PSK31    20  

   14.07 MH. Based on a public domain image
by User:Mysid
 Part V

Convening A Group
  11

BUILDING YOUR CO-LEARNING GROUP

Authors: Gigi Johnson and Joe Corneli

So you’ve decided you want to try peer learning?

Maybe you’ve already found a few people who will
support you in this effort. Congratulations! It’s time
now to focus your thinking. How will you convene
others to form a suitable group? How will you design
a learner experience which will make your project
thrive? In this chapter, we suggest a variety of ques-
tions that will help you to make your project more
concrete for potential new members. There are no
good or bad answers - it depends on the nature of
your project and the context. Trying to answer the
questions is not something you do just once. At vari-
ous stages of the project, even after it’s over, some or
all of those questions will aquire new meanings - and
probably new answers.

Fabrizio Terzi: There is a force of attraction that al-

lows aggregation into groups based on the degree of
personal interest; the ability to enhance and improve
the share of each participant; and the expectation of
success and potential benefit.

Group identity
Note that there are many groups that may not need to be “con-
vened”, since they already exist. There is a good story from A. T.
A in his   in which he does “convene”
a natural group (namely, a village) - but in any case, keep in mind

95
96 C

at the outset that the degree of group-consciousness that is neces-

sary for peer learning to take place is not fixed. In this section, we
suppose you are just at the point of kicking off a project. What
steps should you take? We suggest you take a moment to pon-
der the following questions first - and revisit them afterward, as
a way to identify best practices for the next effort.

There will be a quiz

Those taking the initiative should ask themselves the tradi-
tional Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How. (S S
suggests to begin with Why, and we touched on Who, above!). In
doing so, preliminary assumptions for design and structure are es-
tablished. However, in peer learning it is particularly important
to maintain a healthy degree of openness, so that future group
members can also form their answers on those questions. In par-
ticular, this suggests that the design and structure of the project
(and the group) may change over time. Here, we riff on the tra-
ditional 5W’s+H with six clusters of questions to help you focus
your thinking about the project and amplify its positive outcomes.

“I keep six honest serving-men (They taught me all I knew)”

C 97

Expectations for participants

1. Who: Roles and flux

• What are some of the roles that people are likely to fall into
(e.g. Newcomer, Wrapper, Lurker, Aggregator, etc.)?

• How likely is it that participants will stick with the project?

If you expect many participants to leave, how will this effect
the group and the outcome?

• Do you envision new people joining the group as time goes

by? If so, what features are you designing that will support
their integration into an existing flow?

• Will the project work if people dip in and out? If so, what
features support that? If not, how will people stay focused?

2. What: Nature of the project

• What skills are required? What skills are you trying to

build?

• What kinds of change will participants undergo? Will they

be heading into new ground? Changing their minds about
something? Learning about learning?

• What social objective, or “product” if any, is the project aim-

ing to achieve?

• What’s the ‘hook?’ Unless you are working with an existing

group, or re-using an existing modality, consistent partici-
pation may not be a given.

3. When: Time management

• What do you expect the group to do, from the moment it

convenes, to the end of its life-span, to create the specific
outcome that will exist at the conclusion of its last meeting?
(C. Gersick.) Note that what people ACTUALLY do may be
98 C

different from what you envision at the outset, so you may

want to revisit this question (and your answer) again as the
project progresses.

• Keeping in mind that at least one period of is inertia is very

likely (C. Gersick), what event(s) do you anticipate happen-
ing in the group that will bring things back together, set a
new direction, or generally get things on track? More gen-
erally, what kinds of contingencies does your group face?
How does it interface to the “outside world”?

• What pre-existing narratives or workflows could you copy

in your group?

• How much of a time commitment do you expect from par-

ticipants? Is this kind of commitment realistic for members
of your group?

• What, if anything, can you do to make participation “easy”

in the sense that it happens in the natural flow of life for
group members?

• Does everyone need to participate equally? How might

non-equal participation play out for participants down the
line?

4. Where: Journey vs Destination

• What structures will support participants in their journey

to the end result(s) you (or they) have envisioned? What
content can you use to flesh out this structure?

• Where can the structure “flex” to accommodate unknown

developments or needs as participants learn, discover, and
progress?

5. Why: Tool/platform choice

C 99

• What tools are particularly suited to this group? Con-

sider such features as learning styles and experiences, ge-
ographical diversity, the need for centralization (or de-
centralization), cultural expectations related to group work,
sharing, and emerging leadership.

• Is there an inherent draw to this project for a given pop-

ulation, or are you as facilitator going to have to work at
keeping people involved? How might your answer influ-
ence your choice of tools? Is the reward for completion the
learning itself, or something more tangible?

• In choosing tools, how do you prioritize such values and

objectives as easy entry, diverse uses, and high ceilings for
sophisticated expansion?

6. How: Linearity vs Messiness

• How will your group manage feedback in a constructive

way?

• Why might participants feel motivated to give feedback?

• How firm and extensive are the social contracts for this
group? Do they apply to everyone equally, or do they vary
with participation level?

• What do people need to know at the start? What can you

work out as you go along? Who decides?

• How welcome are “meta-discussions”? What kinds of dis-

cussions are not likely to be welcome? Do you have facil-
ities in place for “breakout groups” or other peer-to-peer
interactions? (Alternatively, if the project is mostly dis-
tributed, do you have any facilities in place for coming to-
gether as a group?)
100 C

Cycles of group development

The above questions remain important thoughout the life of
the project. People may come and go, particpants may propose
fundamentally new approaches, people may evolve from lurkers
to major content creators or vice-versa. The questions we suggest
can be most effective if your group discusses them over time, as
part of its workflow, using synchronous online meetings (e.g., Big
Blue Button, Adobe Connect, Blackboard Collaborate), forums,
Google docs, wikis, and/or email lists. Regular meetings are one
way to establish a “heartbeat” for the group.
In thinking about other ways of structuring things, note
that the “body” of the Peeragogy Handbook follows a T
  (Convening a Group is our “forming”, Organiz-
ing a Learning Context is our “storming and norming”, Co-
working/Facilitation is our “performing”, and Assessment is our
“adjourning”). But we agree with Gersick [1], and Engeström [2],
that groups do not always follow a linear or cyclical pattern with
their activities!
Nevertheless, there may be some specific stages or phases that
you want your group to go through. Do you need some “mile-
stones,” for example? How will you know when you’ve achieved
“success?”
In closing, it is worth reminding you that it is natural for
groups to experience conflict, especially as they grow or cross
other threshold points or milestones - or perhaps more likely,
when they don’t cross important milestones in a timely fashion
(ah, so you remember those milestones from the previous sec-
tion!). Nevertheless, there are some strategies can be used to make
this conflict productive, rather than merely destructive (see Oz-
turk and Simsek [3]).

References
1. Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams:
Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y.
Engeström, R. Miettinen & R.-L-. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspec-
C 101

tives on activity theory, (pp. 377-404). Cambridge, UK: Cam-

bridge University Press

2. Gersick, C. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: To-

ward a new model of group development. Academy of Man-
agement Journal 31 (Oct.): 9-41.

3. Ozturk and Simsek, “O C  V L

C   C   D P
: A   ?,” in Proceedings of the Net-
worked Learning Conference, 2012, Maastricht.
  12

PLAY AND LEARNING

Authors: Bryan Alexander and Anna Keune

Once more we’re back to the question, “What makes learning

fun?” There are deep links between play and learning. Consider,
for instance, the way we learn the rules of a game through playing
it. The first times we play a card game, or a physical sport, or a
computer simulation we test out rule boundaries as well as our
understanding. Actors and role-players learn their roles through
the dynamic process of performance. The resulting learning isn’t
absorbed all at once, but accretes over time through an emergent
process, one unfolding further through iterations. In other words,
the more we play a game, the more we learn it.
In addition to the rules of play, we learn about the subject
which play represents, be it a strategy game (chess, for exam-
ple) or simulation of economic conflict. Good games echo good
teaching practice, too, in that they structure a single player’s ex-
perience to fit their regime of competence (cf. Vygotsky’s zone of
proximal learning, a la Gee [1]). That is to say a game challenges
players at a level suited to their skill and knowledge: comfort-
able enough that play is possible, but so challenging as to avoid
boredom, eliciting player growth. Role-playing in theater lets
performers explore and test out concepts; see Boal [2]. Further,
adopting a playful attitude helps individuals meet new challenges
with curiousity, along with a readiness to mobilize ideas and prac-
tical knowledge. Indeed, the energy activated by play can take a
person beyond an event’s formal limitations, as players can as-
sume that play can go on and on [3].

Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown: “All sys-

tems of play are, at base, learning systems.” [4]

103
104 P  

Games have always had a major social component, and learning

plays a key role in that interpersonal function. Using games to
build group cohesion is an old practice, actually a triusm in team
sports.
It is important to locate our peeragogical moment in a world
where gaming is undergoing a renaissance. Not only has digital
gaming become a large industry, but gaming has begun to infil-
trate non-gaming aspects of the world, sometimes referred to as
“gamification.” Putting all three of these levels together, we see
that we can possibly improve co-learning by adopting a playful
mindset. Such a playful attitude can then mobilize any or all of
the above advantages. For example,

• Two friends are learning the Russian language together.

They invent a vocabulary game: one identifies an object in
the world, and the other must name it in Russian. They take
turns, each challenging the other, building up their com-
mon knowledge.

• A middle-aged man decides to take up hiking. The prospect

is somewhat daunting, since he’s a very proud person and
is easily stymied by learning something from scratch. So he
adopts a “trail name”, a playful pseudonym. This new iden-
tity lets him set-aside his self-importance and risk making
mistakes. Gradually he grows comfortable with what his
new persona learns.

• We can also consider the design field as a useful kind of

playful peeragogy. The person playing the role of the de-
signer can select the contextual frame within which the de-
sign is performed. This frame can be seen as the rules gov-
erning the design, the artifact and the process. These rules,
as with some games, may change over time. Therefore the
possibility to adapt, to tailor one’s activities to changing
context is important when designing playful learning activ-
ities. (And we’ll look at some ways to design peer learning
experiences next!)
P   105

Of course, “game-based learning” can be part of standard peda-

gogy too. When peers create the game themselves, this presum-
ably involves both game-based learning and peer learning. Clas-
sic strategy games like G and C also provide clear examples
of peer learning practices: the question is partly, what skills and
mindsets do our game-related practices really teach?

Socrates: “No compulsory learning can remain in the

soul . . . ln teaching children, train them by a kind
of game, and you will be able to see more clearly the
natural bent of each.” (quoted by Thomas Malone [5])

Exercises that can help you cultivate a playful attitude

• Use the O S card deck (Brian Eno and Pe-
ter Schmidt, 1st edition 1975, now available in its fifth edi-
tion) to spur playful creativity. Each card advises players to
change their creative process, often in surprising directions.

• Take turns making and sharing videos. This online collab-

orative continuous video storytelling involves a group of
people creating short videos, uploading them to YouTube,
then making playlists of results. Similar to C K, only
online.

• Engage in theater play using Google+ Hangout. e.g. com-

ing together with a group of people online and performing
theatrical performances on a shared topic that are recorded.

References
1. Gee, J. P. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and
social practice. Series in language and ideology. New York:
Bergin & Garvey.

2. Boal, A. (1979). Theatre of the oppressed. 3rd ed. London:

Pluto Press.
106 P  

3. Bereiter, C. and Scadamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves,

an inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Peru,
Illinois: Open Court.

4. Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown (2011), A New Cul-

ture of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for a World of
Constant Change. CreateSpace.

5. Malone, T.W. (1981), Toward a Theory of Intrinsically Mo-

tivating Instruction, Cognitive Science, 4, pp. 333-369
  13

K-12 PEERAGOGY

Author: Verena Roberts

Teachers have a reputation of working in isolation, of keep-

ing their learning to themselves and on their own islands. They
are also known for generously sharing resources with one an-
other. It is this latter trait that is becoming increasingly impor-
tant as the role of the educator continues to expand. As educa-
tional technology research specialist Stephen Downes ,
the expectations on teachers have grown from “being expert in
the discipline of teaching and pedagogy…[to needing to have]
up-to-date and relevant knowledge and experience in it. Even a
teacher of basic disciplines such as science, history or mathemat-
ics must remain grounded, as no discipline has remained stable
for very long, and all disciplines require a deeper insight in order
to be taught effectively.” It is no longer possible for an educator
to work alone to fulfil each of these roles: the solution is to work
and learn in collaboration with others. This is where peer-based
sharing and learning online, connected/networked learning, or
peeragogy, can play an important role in helping educators.

Becoming a connected/networked learner

The following steps are set out in ‘phases’ in order to suggest
possible experiences one may encounter when becoming con-
nected. It is acknowledged that every learner is different and
these ‘phases’ only serve as a guide.

Phase 1: Deciding to take the plunge To help educators begin

to connect, the C E’ S K was created
during Connected Educator’s Month in August 2012. This article
previews the main steps. The first step to becoming a ‘connected

107
108 K12 P

educator-learner’ involves making the commitment to spending

the time you’ll need to learn how to learn and share in an open,
connected environment.

Phase 2: Lurking We start off as lurkers. A learner can be con-

sidered a true ‘lurker’ after reviewing the starter kit, establishing a
digital presence (through a blog or a wiki) or signing up for Twit-
ter and creating a basic profile containing a photo. In this phase,
lurkers will begin to ‘’    T and ob-
serve  T ‘’. Lurkers will also begin to
seek out other resources through , F, E and
LI groups.

Phase 3: Entering the fray The lurker begins to develop into a

connected educator-learner once he or she makes the decision to
enter into a dialogue with another user. This could take the form
of a personal blog post, participation on an education-related
 or  or a an exchange with another Twitter user. Once
this exchange takes place, relationships may begin to form and
the work towards building a Personal Learning Network (PLN)
begins.
One such site where such relationships can be built is C
 2.0, which was founded by S H. Through
Classroom 2.0, Steve facilitates a number of free online learning
opportunities including weekly B C ses-
sions, conferences, book projects and grassroots cross-country
educational-transformation tours. Classroom 2.0 also offers a
supportive Social Ning—a free, social learning space that provides
online conferences and synchronous and recorded interviews
with inspirational educators—for connected educator-learners
around the world.

Phase 4: Building and shaping your PLN Just as not every per-
son one meets becomes a friend, it is important to remember that
not every exchange will lead to a co-learning peeragogy arrange-
ment. It may be sufficient to follow another who provides useful
K12 P 109

content without expecting any reciprocation. It is dependent on

each educator-learner to determine who to pay attention to and
what learning purpose that individual or group will serve. It is
also up to the learner-educator to demonstrate to others that he
or she will actively participate.
There are a number of  one can use when shaping
the PLN to learn. However, one of the best ways educators can
attract a core of peeragogues is by sharing actively and demon-
strating active and open learning for others.
There are a number of sites where a new educator-learner
can actively and openly learn. In addition to personal blogging
and wikis, other professional development opportunities include
open, online courses and weekly synchronous online meetings
through video, podcasts or other forms of media.
Examples include: C L TV, TT
T, VN, SK12, K12 O, CEET,
and ETT.
Alternatively, courses are offered with P2PU’ School of Ed-
ucation or a wide variety of other opportunities collected by
TT and Educator’s CPD online. Peggy George, the
co-faciliator of the weekly Classroom 2.0 LIVE Sessions, created
a livebinder package of free ‘PD O D’ connected profes-
sional development online options for peeragogy enthusiasts.

Stage 5: Extending the digital PLN and connecting face-to-

face Over time, once the connected educator-learner has estab-
lished a refined PLN, these peeragogues may choose to shift their
learning into physical learning spaces. Some options available
for these educator-learners would include the new ‘grassRoots
unconferences’, which include examples such as: EC, E
C, THAT and CCA.
These (un)conferences are free or extremely low-cost and fo-
cus on learning from and with others. They are typically pub-
licized through Twitter, Google Apps, and Facebook. Connect-
ing face-to-face with other peeragogues can strengthen bonds to
learning networks and help to promote their sustainability.
110 K12 P

Postscript Sylvia Tolisano, Rodd Lucier and Zoe Branigan-

Pipen co-created an  that which explores the ex-
periences individuals may encounter in the journey to become
connected learners through another related sequence of steps:
Lurker, Novice, Insider, Colleague, Collaborator, Friend, and Con-
fidant. Check it out, and also have a look at our Recommended
Readings for some additional resources.
  14

P2P SELF-ORGANIZED LEARNING

ENVIRONMENTS

Author: Jan Herder

From this conversational piece you can engage in a

journey to affect your learning space through many
points of entry interacting with the physical one. We
hope to inspire emerging structure and reciprocal
mentoring to create a ripple effect for those willing
to open the door to a new possible world.

The Guiding Strategy:

In his Peeragogical Case Study David Preston states:

Peeragogical interaction requires refining relational

and topical critique, as well as skills in other
“meta” literacies, including but not limited to critical
thinking, collaboration, conflict resolution, decision-
making, mindfulness, patience and compassion.
(from Case Study: 5PH1NX [1]).

A SO L E, or SOLE, with

a living structure accomplishes all of these outcomes, or David’s
“meta-literacies,” simultaneously. An authentic problem and/or
project based activity in a connected learning environment in-
cludes diverse learners in diverse ways by empowering all learn-
ers as peers.
This provides the authentic learning environment with which
to design a SOLE. SOLEs are everywhere. How have we evolved
as a species, if not through self-organizing? A conversation be-
tween strangers is self organizing, each learning about something

111
112 P2P SOLE

A        SOLE

(://./7SJK)
P2P SOLE 113

or each other. The spaces around people conversing is also an en-

vironment, though not explicitly a learning one. While we are al-
ways self-organizing to learn or accomplish things, one place that
SOLEs do not always exist are in learning institutions. In many
educational institutions, our learning environments are predom-
inately organized by the teacher, curriculum, or society. How
can we nurture peer to peer learning environments to organize?
How does the role of the teacher differ in a SOLE? In what ways
can we unite that fundamental, passionate human characteristic
of curiosity and self-organizing back into our Learning Environ-
ments?
The model that S M [2] is experimenting with gives
us some scaffolding to create one ourselves. This is the goal of
his SOLE T K (3). Sugata’s kit is directed towards children
between 8 and 12 years old. I was wondering if there is a way
to make it more universal in its application. How can I apply it
to my situation? How is a SOLE different in the context of peer
to peer learning? This chapter of the Handbook uses Sugata’s
model as a doorway into our understanding a SOLE approach to
peer to peer learning. Its three key components are: learners,
context and project. I find the discussion needs to integrate what
we are learning about diverse learners into a U D
 L [4] context. After all, we cannot take for granted
who the peers are in the SOLE. Equally, the context, the learning
environment (LE) must be as deeply considered as the learners
participating. As a learning designer, I am also seeking more clues
about the living structure of a well crafted SOLE.

Centers within the Center

SOLEs exist in a particular context. Take Sugata’s  
  [5] experiment. The parameters of the environment of
a computer embedded in a wall in India are very specific. Sug-
ata’s act was to design a project in order to facilitate a process
within that environment. The elements he introduced were a
touch screen computer embedded in a wall with specific software.
Sugata has abstracted this design into a Tool Kit. He speaks of
114 P2P SOLE

‘Child Driven Learning’, intrinsically motivated learning with the

curiosity to learn something in particular. As a learner-centric
peeragogy, SOLEs are emergent, bottom up, seeking to answer:
How do we design a project (or phrase a problem) that ignites a
learner’s passion?
A SOLE is a facilitated learning environment (LE) that can
nurture learner driven activity. For instance, in the Hole in the
Wall example, the design is the context of the wall, the street, the
neighborhood –and the facilitation is the touch screen monitor
in the wall. They are brilliantly united. In this sense it is an in-
tentional, self-aware learning environment. It is a strange foreign
object that anyone would have to figure out how it works to take
advantage of. But this is not in the classroom, or in the ‘school.’
It is an informal LE. Just like    [6], there is an
entire ecology that surrounds you. This is very much a systemic
approach. The context is facilitated explicitly (your design of the
SOLE), but also implicitly in the   [7] that de-
fines your LE. Above is the layout of the  
 [8] I explored to work around the hidden curricu-
lum of the traditional classroom. The LE has a tremendous, if
not  ,   [9]. The first step
in connected learning is to reconnect to the environment around
us. For me, the primary context of my LE is a performing arts
center at a small rural liberal arts college. The Performing Arts
Center is a Center within the context of the college and commu-
nity. A diversity of spaces within the facility are inhabited: small
and cozy, large and public, technology embedded everywhere, all
focused on the project based learning that emerges producing a
performance. I stay away from a formal classroom as much as
possible. These spaces are Centers within the Center, ‘
   ’ [10] within themselves,
just like people. I believe that the possibility of a SOLE emerg-
ing as a living structure seems to depend on the correct types of
complex systems engaged in the LE.
What is the role of the internet in your design? Mitigating
inequalities and accommodating diverse learners are somewhat
assisted by access to the internet. But it is the immediate, 
P2P SOLE 115

  [11] that makes free and open access to the
world wide web so important in a SOLE. Wireless is available
throughout this LE. Nooks and lounges, interconnected, but sep-
arate rooms, provide lots of places for collaboration or solitary
work, for staying connected or hiding out. In a UDL vision of a
facilitated peer to peer SOLE, technology is integral to the design.
In the case of my LE, with the use of digital audio, multi-media,
database management, robotic lighting and  [12] colors,
learners are accustomed to accessing and augmenting reality with
technology: allowing learners to access their social media is part
of their content creation.
Do we start our SOLE as peers? Peer to peer assumes your
participants are peers–especially you, the facilitator. There needs
to be enough diversity and complexity to include all learners, en-
gendering a U D C [13]. What is the
role of diversity in peer to peer SOLE building? How are diverse
learners peers? In my LE, I discovered 70% of my learners have
learning challenges. I know my LE is not unique in this regard. I
have to facilitate a SOLE design that is inclusive. This is in con-
tradistinction to commonality, yet this diversity is what we crave,
for creativity and innovation, for deep learning to occur. Craft-
ing your SOLE using multiple means of representation, expres-
sion and engagement empowers learners to be peers. A diverse
learning environment, supporting diverse learning styles and di-
verse learners, supports a complex project based SOLE. But there
are many SOLEs within the SOLE since learning is occurring on
many levels with each student and within each group. We do not
all get the same thing at the same time. Learning outcomes are
diverse, emergent, serendipitous.
What type of project, problem or event will focus your efforts?
Either a    [14] may emerge from the
SOLE, or a    [15] within a specific con-
text may answer this question. Ownership and leadership emerge
when learners can apply their creativity and/or authentically as-
sist each other in a common goal. Opportunities to design and
modify even small things will draw learners into a project. The
more they must rely on each other, collaborate and share their
116 P2P SOLE

creativity, their designs and actualization–the more they work

together as peers. The spaces in your LE are most likely already
designed and built to accommodate the purpose of the facility in
the context of the college or school. We cannot really redesign the
actual space, but we can redesign many aspects. We can look for
designs within it. Being able to design your own space, or project,
is critical to taking ownership of your learning and experiencing
the consequences. As learners mature and look for ways to be
more involved, I suggest they redesign the shop, the repertory
lighting plot, or the procedures of their department and/or SOLE
overall. Exchanging roles as designer also stimulates peer inter-
action. Why not integrate design and design thinking? In my
context, lighting, scene, costume and sound design are intercon-
nected opportunities. Along with accompanying technology, ev-
ery opportunity is used to nurture empathy, creativity, rationality
and systems thinking. Integral to the learner generated syllabus
or project design should be continuous artifact creation. A great
place to start the design process and to begin to generate content
is by using a virtual world.
Constant content creation can integrate assessment into your
SOLE. It is the quality of the artifacts created along the way that
reveals the success of your SOLE. Media that chronicles a journey
through time, created by each learner, reveals the depth of par-
ticipation. It is nearly impossible to cheat. The learner expresses
their comprehension in the types and extent of artifact creation.
As the facilitator, I look for opportunities to introduce the un-
expected, bigger questions, deeper considerations, along the way.
For example, in the context of my LE, one of the events feature Ti-
betan Monks. They bring a counterpoint to the inflated egos and
cult of personality which is prevalent in our context. The SOLE
Plan is extended. It can happen over a much longer amount of
time than one class or one day. The actors rehearse for weeks,
as the design team designs, giving time for: research, absorption,
misleads, mistakes, correction and reflection. A SOLE needs time
and persistence to generate artifacts, documentation and experi-
ences of the project and virtual worlds are an excellent way to
extend time and space synchronously and asynchronously.
P2P SOLE 117

Sugata emphasizes the Big questions. We do not always know

what they are. A focus? A goal? A product? And the event? That
should be decided with the group. The learners intuit the direc-
tion that leads to deep engagement and the bigger questions. I try
and leave it ambiguous, suggesting some of the things they might
encounter. Facilitating the SOLE in this context, we face endless
questions connected to the specific LE, to all the imaginary sce-
narios, Herculean tasks and questions– like building castles, pro-
gramming a digital sound console, troubleshooting robotic light-
ing instruments, how to make the illusion of fire or, even, who
killed Charlemagne? The Box Office is an example of an infor-
mal SOLE that has emerged recurrently over time. I have noticed
that its vitality depends on the characters and the ebb and flow of
learners entering the group or graduating. The physical space is a
small, windowless and often damp room with a couple of couches
and a desk with a computer squeezed in. My very own ‘Hole in
the Wall’ experiment. The bottom of the door can remain closed,
while the top is open, like a stable. Primarily the students are paid
to be there, answering the phone, reserving tickets, greeting pa-
trons and managing the Box Office and the Front of the House. In
the SOLE, this subtle inversion of the institutional value proposi-
tion turns ‘work study’ into studying work. This is an informal LE
nested within the context of the formal institution and the wider
LE: a center within a center. Some semesters there are business
majors working their way up the job ladder: Usher to Assistant
Front of House Manager, to Assistant Box Office Manager, to Box
Office Manager. Sometimes this takes 4 years, sometimes it hap-
pens in a semester or two. It is a recursive SOLE that differs as the
interests and skills of the students who inhabit the space change.
As the current manager puts it, the Box Office is a ‘constantly
evolving puzzle.’
This example of a SOLE in an informal LE is similar to the
other types of SOLE’s that occur within a facilitated LE. The
learner’s interact as reciprocal apprentices, leaning on one an-
other to solve challenges and problems. Groups are self-selective,
this type of work suits their temperament and interests, or time.
This cohort is almost a clique, attracting their boyfriends and girl-
118 P2P SOLE

friends. They begin initiatives, re-design the lobby for crowd con-
trol, redecorate and rearrange the space constantly, decide their
schedules and split up responsibility. Everyone is always training
everyone, because the environment turns over each semester. It
is explicitly an informal LE. The workers are students. This in-
verts the usual state of affairs, where essentially they are being
paid to learn, though they may not even be aware of it. Occa-
sionally, the learning experience resonates deeply with them. A
number of them have used the experience to leverage jobs that
parallel their interests, or get them started on their careers.
Job titles, roles of responsibility, are often problematic in a
SOLE. The bottom line is that as peers we are all equal and at
certain times everyone is expected to do everything regardless of
their roles. Titles go to people’s heads. But this is part of the ex-
perience. Keep the titles moving, change it up when things get
bottlenecked over personalities. Sometimes I create duplicate po-
sitions, Assistants of Assistants. and Department Heads. The Ap-
prenticeship model is at play but in a new way in a SOLE. There
are peers and there are peers. As power struggles emerge, some
like-to-like grouping occurs. The role of the facilitator becomes
mediator. The emergent epistemology of abundance and con-
nected learning asks for a multitude of ‘experts.’ In the same way,
leadership can be distributed, flowing as varying needs arise.
The experience of practicing leadership skills and encounter-
ing all the variables of working with diverse folks quickly gives
feedback to us if this is a helpful role for this person. It is messy
sometimes, and there are conflicts. After a few events, they learn
how to manage a Box Office, dealing with patrons, emergencies,
complaints and bag check. They confront the larger peer group,
the student body, with authority and empathy. They are very
proud of their jobs and make their own name tags with titles. A
hierarchy gives them rewards that they have been trained to ex-
pect from years in school. It is another way of developing intrin-
sic motivation and challenges them to interact with their peers
authentically.
As facilitator, I try to leave them alone as much as possible.
The context has been created, the computer in the wall is on a
P2P SOLE 119

desk. Extending the design of your SOLE contributes to its living

structure. I have used F   S LMS [16]
since 2007 because this is where my students are and it allows
them to control the structures of groups emergently. The learn-
ers create the groups as they are relevant. The facilitator does
not. Usually they invite me in! For now, Facebook aggregates the
learning community that the SOLE inspires as learners become
leaders, establish connections with each other and mentor new-
bies. This activity is integrated into artifact creation, ‘comments’
and documentation of their personal learning journey. Facebook
becomes a precursor for their portfolios, and in some cases, it is
their portfolio. R A [17] occur in the
dynamic of collaboration among peers. Continuity in time be-
yond the event horizon is accomplished by these relationships.
Peers nurture one another along the shared learning journey that
the SOLE provides. As facilitator and designer, you are, most of
all, in a reciprocal relationship with the other learners. This is the
essence of being a peer, an interaction that respects what each of
us brings to the experience.

References
1. Preston, David (2014). Case Study: 5PH1NX (pp. ??–61,
this volume).

2. A S M

3. T SOLE T

4. National Center for Universal Design for Learning, U

 D  L G

5. Sugata Mitra (2010). T  , TED.

6. G L  I M 

K M

7. H C, on Wikipedia.

120 P2P SOLE

8. T L E A

9. Elmasry, Sarah Khalil (2007). I P 

L T. IRB# 05-295-06.

10. Curious : IF / , T T

  C A.

11. O  B T? H L 

J I T I

12. D F, on Wikipedia.

13. cast.org, UDL G

14. A L S G S

15. U G E B

16. F   S LMS

17. R A

  15

A STORY ABOUT NEW BEGINNINGS

Once he gets to the Whispering Gallery, Jorge realizes that the

girl was right. This is the center of the universe. There are mur-
murs to be heard there – it seems they come from everywhere. He
hears about guilds and the craftsmen who built the cathedral. He
learns about how proud they were and how they formed commu-
nities of practice, educating the uninitiated, teaching each other
to create. He returns to ground level. The girl is gone, but he
feels happy and inspired. He can do much more then repackage
social media streams; there is more going on here than Twitter
as a new broadcast medium. He starts a new journey: finding a
guild, a community of practice, but restyled in a 21st century fash-
ion. It will be more open, more connected to others then the old
guilds. He will still use Twitter, a social dashboard, and curating
tools, but also he uses wikis, and synchronous communication.
And most importantly, he starts building, together with others
– in particular, together with the people formerly known as his
readers. They will co-create the analysis, the search for solutions
and sense-making, rather than helplessly listening to “experts”,
passively consuming pre-processed knowledge and information.
Instead, they’ll start building their own destiny, and the news-
room will be part of the platform.

121
122 A    

Section of the Dome at St Paul’s Cathedral

 Part VI

Organizing a Learning
Context
  16

INTRODUCTION TO ORGANIZING CO-LEARNING

This section about organizing Co-Learning rests on the as-

sumption that learning always happens in a context, whether this
context is a structured “course” or a (potentially) less structured
“learning space”. For the moment we consider the following divi-
sion:

• Organizing Co-learning Contexts

– Courses (= “learning linked to a timeline or syllabus”)

– Spaces (= “learning not linked to a timeline or syl-
labus”)

This section focuses on existing learning contexts and examines

in detail how they have been “organized” by their (co-)creators. At
a “meta-level” of media, we can talk about this parallel structure:

• Building Co-learning Platforms

– Development trajectories (e.g. “design, implement,

test, repeat”)
– Platform features (e.g. forums, wikis, ownership mod-
els, etc.)

A given learning environment with have both time-like and

space-like features as well as both designed-for and un-planned
features. A given learning platform will encourage certain types
of engagement and impose certain constraints. The question for
both “teachers” and “system designers” – as well as for learners –
should be: what features best support learning?
The answer will depend on the learning task and available
resources.

125
126 O CL

For example, nearly everyone agrees that the best way to learn
a foreign language is through immersion. But not everyone who
wants to learn, say, French, can afford to drop everything to go
live in a French-speaking country. Thus, the space-like full im-
mersion “treatment” is frequently sacrificed for course-like treat-
ments (either via books, CDs, videos, or ongoing participation in
semi-immersive discussion groups).
System designers are also faced with scarce resources: pro-
grammer time, software licensing concerns, availability of peer
support, and so forth. While the ideal platform would (magically)
come with solutions pre-built, a more realistic approach recog-
nizes that problem solving always takes time and energy. The
problem solving approach and associated “learning orientation”
will also depend on the task and resources at hand. The follow-
ing sections will develop this issue further through some specific
case studies.

Case study 1 (pilot, completed): “Paragogy” and the

After Action Review.
In our analysis of our experiences as course organizers at
P2PU, we (Joe Corneli and Charlie Danof) used the US Army’s
technique of After Action Review (AAR). To quote from  
 [2]:

As the name indicates, the AAR is used to review

training exercises. It is important to note that while
one person typically plays the role of evaluator in
such a review […] the review itself happens among
peers, and examines the operations of the unit as a
whole.
The four steps in an AAR are:

1. Review what was supposed to happen (training

plans).
2. Establish what happened.
O CL 127

3. Determine what was right or wrong with what

happened.
4. Determine how the task should be done differ-
ently the next time.

The stated purpose of the AAR is to “identify

strengths and shortcomings in unit planning, prepa-
ration, and execution, and guide leaders to accept re-
sponsibility for shortcomings and produce a fix.”

We combined the AAR with several principles (see Discussion

section below), which we felt described effective peer learning,
and went through steps 1-4 for each principle to look at how well
it was implemented at P2PU. This process helped generate a range
of advice that could be applied at P2PU or similar institutions.
By presenteding our paper at the O K C
(OKC), we were able to meet P2PU’s executive director, Philipp
Schmidt, as well as other highly-involved P2PU participants; our
feedback may have contributed to shaping the development tra-
jectory for P2PU.
In addition, we developed a strong prototype for construc-
tive engagement with peer learning that we and others could
deploy again. In other words, variants on the AAR and
the paragogical principles could be incorporated into future
learning contexts as platform features [3] or re-used in a de-
sign/administration/moderation approach [4]. For example, we
also used the AAR to help structure our writing and subsequent
work on ..

Case Study 2 (in progress): “Peeragogy”.

Our particular focus in the interviews was on drawing out and
emphasizing the relational dimension of students, learning expe-
riences within their environment and, consequently, on inferring
from their accounts a sense of how they perceived and indeed
constituted their environment. We asked them who they learned
with and from and how. A further question specifically focused
128 O CL

on whom they regarded as their peers and how they understood

their peers as a source and a site for learning.” [1]
In this section, we will interview and/or survey members of
the Peeragogy community with questions similar to those used by
Boud and Lee [1] and then identify strengths and shortcomings
as we did with the AAR above. These questions are derived from
the AAR.

Questions
These were discussed, refined, and answered on an etherpad:
revisions to the original set of questions are marked in italics.
1. Who have you learned with or from in the Peeragogy
project? What are you doing to contribute to your peers’
learning?
2. How have you been learning during the project?
3. Who are your peers in this community, and why?
4. What were your expectations of participation in this
project? And, specifically, what did you (or do you) hope to
learn through participation in this project?
5. What actually happened during your participation in this
project (so far)? Have you been making progress on your
learning goals (if any; see previous question) – or learned any-
thing unexpected, but interesting?
6. What is right or wrong with what happened (Alternatively:
how would you assess the project to date?)
7. How might the task be done differently next time? (What’s
“missing” here that would create a “next time”, “sequel”, or
“continuation”?)
8. How would you like to use the Peeragogy handbook?
9. Finally, how might we change the questions, above, if we
wanted to apply them in your peeragogical context?
O CL 129

Reflections on participants’ answers

The questions were intended to help participants reflect on,
and change, their practice (i.e. their style of participation). There
is a tension, however, between changing midstream and learning
what we might do differently next time. There is a related tension
between initial structure and figuring things out as we go. Ar-
guably, if we knew, 100%, how to do peeragogy, then we would
not learn very much in writing this handbook. Difficulties and
tensions would be resolved “in advance” (see earlier comments
about “magical” technologies for peer production).
And yet, despite our considerable collected expertise on col-
laboration, learning, and teaching, there have been a variety of
tensions here! Perhaps we should judge our “success” partly on
how well we deal with those. Some of the tensions highlighted in
the answers are as follows:

1. Slow formation of “peer” relationships. There is a certain

irony here: we are studying “peeragogy” and yet many re-
spondents did not feel they were really getting to know one
another “as peers”, at least not yet. Those who did have
a “team” or who knew one another from previous experi-
ences, felt more peer-like in those relationships. Several re-
marked that they learned less from other individual partic-
ipants and more from “the collective” or “from everyone”.
At the same time, some respondents had ambiguous feel-
ings about naming individuals in the first question: “I felt
like I was going to leave people out and that that means they
would get a bad grade - ha!” One criterion for being a peer
was to have built something together, so by this criterion,
it stands to reason that we would only slowly become peers
through this project.
2. “Co-learning”, “co-teaching”, “co-producing”? One respon-
dent wrote: “I am learning about peeragogy, but I think I’m
failing [to be] a good peeragog. I remember that Howard
[once] told us that the most important thing is that you
should be responsible not only for your own learning but
130 O CL

for your peers’ learning. […] So the question is, are we

learning from others by ourselves or are we […] helping
others to learn?” Another wrote: “To my surprise I realized
I could contribute organizationally with reviews, etc. And
that I could provide some content around PLNs and group
process. Trying to be a catalyst to a sense of forward move-
ment and esprit de corps.”

3. Weak structure at the outset, versus a more “flexible” ap-

proach. One respondent wrote: “I definitely think I do bet-
ter when presented with a framework or scaffold to use for
participation or content development. […] (But perhaps
it is just that I’m used to the old way of doing things).”
Yet, the same person wrote: “I am interested in [the] ap-
plicability [of pæragogy] to new models for entrepreneur-
ship enabling less structured aggregation of participants in
new undertakings, freed of the requirement or need for an
entrepreneurial visionary/source/point person/proprietor.”
There is a sense that some confusion, particularly at the be-
ginning, may be typical for peeragogy. With hindsight, one
proposed “solution” would be to “have had a small group of
people as a cadre that had met and brainstormed before the
first live session […] tasked [with] roles [and] on the same
page”.

4. Technological concerns. There were quite a variety, perhaps

mainly to do with the question: how might a (different)
platform handle the tension between “conversations” and
“content production”? For example, will Wordpress help us
“bring in” new contributors, or would it be better to use
an open wiki? Another respondent noted the utility for
many readers of a take-away PDF version. The site (peera-
gogy.org) should be “[a] place for people to share, comment,
mentor and co-learn together in an ongoing fashion.”

5. Sample size. Note that answers are still trickling in. How
should we interpret the response rate? Perhaps what mat-
ters is that we are getting “enough” responses to make an
O CL 131

analysis. One respondent proposed asking questions in a

more ongoing fashion, e.g., asking people who are leaving:
“What made you want to quit the project?”

Discussion
Lisewski and Joyce: In recent years, the tools, knowl-
edge base and discourse of the learning technol-
ogy profession has been bolstered by the appearance
of conceptual paradigms such as the ‘five stage e-
moderating model’ and the new mantra of ‘communi-
ties of practice’. This paper will argue that, although
these frameworks are useful in informing and guid-
ing learning technology practice, there are inherent
dangers in them becoming too dominant a discourse.

The following table helps to emphasize something we saw in

the pattern catalog: in practice, what we really have is a patch-
work collection of tricks or heuristics. The paragogy principles
are themselves a non-linear interface that we can plug into and
adapt where appropriate. Instead of a grand narrative, we see
a growing collection of case studies and descriptive patterns. As
we share our experiences and make needed adaptations, our tech-
niques for doing peer learning and peer production become more
robust. Based on the experiences described above, here are a few
things people may want to try out in future projects:

• “Icebreaking” techniques or a “buddy system”; continual

refactoring into teams.

• Maintain a process diagram that can be used to “triage” new

ideas and effort.

• Prefer the “good” to the “best”, but make improvements at

the platform level as needed.

• Gathering some information from everyone who joins, and,

if possible, everyone who leaves.
132
Paragogical Principles…
1. Changing context as a decentered
center.
[We interact by changing the
space.]
2. Meta-learning as a font of knowl-
edge.
[We interact by changing what we
know about ourselves.]
3. Peers provide feedback that would
not be there otherwise.
[We interact by changing our per-
spective on things.]
4. Paragogy is distributed and non-
linear.
[We interact by changing the way
things connect.]
5. Realize the dream if you can, then
wake up!
[We interact by changing our ob-
jectives.]
O CL
Reflections on practice and expe-
rience suggest…
It seems we begin with weak ties,
and then experience a slow forma-
tion of “peer” relationships, as we
form and re-form our social context,
and come to better understand our
goals.
We learn a lot about ourselves by
interacting with others. But par-
ticipants struggle to find the right
way to engage: “co-learning”, “co-
teaching”, or “co-producing”? More-
over, “People come–they stay for a
while, they flourish, they build–and
they go.”
We begin with a weak structure at
the outset but this may afford a more
“flexible” approach as time goes on
(see also this handbook section which
offers advice on designing activities
that help create a “flexible struc-
ture”).
There are a number of technological
concerns, which in a large part have
to do with tensions between “content
production” and “conversation”, and
to a lesser extent critique the plat-
forms we’re using.
Even with a small group, we can
extract meaningful ideas about peer
learning and form a strong collective
effort, which moves things forward
for those involved: this means work.
We would not get the same results
through “pure contemplation”.
O CL 133

References
1. Boud, D. and Lee, A. (2005). ‘P ’  
   . Studies in Higher Ed-
ucation, 30(5):501–516.

2. Joseph Corneli and Charles Jeffrey Danoff, P, in

Sebastian Hellmann, Philipp Frischmuth, Sören Auer, and
Daniel Dietrich (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Open Knowl-
edge Conference, Berlin, Germany, June 30 & July 1, 2011,

3. Joseph Corneli and Alexander Mikroyannidis (2011). P

  PS L: T P
P L E (P2PLE), Digital Education
Review, 20.

4. Joseph Corneli, P P, E-Learning and Digi-

tal Media (ISSN 2042-7530), Volume 9, Number 3, 2012

5. Lisewski, B., and P. Joyce (2003). Examining the Five Stage

e-Moderating Model: Designed and Emergent Practice in
the Learning Technology Profession, Association for Learn-
ing Technology Journal, 11, 55-66.
  17

ADDING STRUCTURE WITH ACTIVITIES

In the introduction to “Organizing a Learning Context”, we re-

marked that a “learning space” is only potentially less structured
than a “course”. For example, a library tends to be highly struc-
tured, with quiet rooms for reading, protocols for checking out
books, a cataloging and shelving system that allows people to
find what they are looking for, as well as rules that deter van-
dalism and theft. (Digital libraries don’t need to play by all the
same rules, but are still structured.)
But more structure does not always lead to better learning. In
a 2010 Forbes article titled, “The Classroom in 2020,” George Kem-
bel describes a future in which “Tidy lectures will be supplanted
by messy real-world challenges.” The Stanford School of Design,
(or “d.school” – which Kemble co-founded and currently directs)
is already well-known for its open collaborative spaces, abundant
supply of post-it notes and markers, and improvisational brain-
storm activities – almost the opposite of traditional lecture-based
learning.
One “unexpected benefit” of dealing with real-world chal-
lenges is that we can change our approach as we go. This is how it
works in peer learning: peers can decide on different structures
not just once (say, at the beginning of a course), but through-
out the duration of their time together. This way, they are never
“stuck” with existing structures, whether they be messy or clean.
At least… that’s the ideal.
In practice, “bottlenecks” frequently arise. For example, in
a digital library context, there may be bottlenecks having to do
with software development, organizational resources, community
good will, or access to funding – and probably all of the above. In
a didactic context, it may be as simple as one person knowing
something that others do not.
While we can’t eliminate scarcity in one stroke, we can design

135
136 A 

activities for peer learning that are “scarcity aware” and that help
us move in the direction of adaptive learning structures.

Planning Peer Learning Activities

We begin with two simple questions:

• How do we select an appropriate learning activity?

• How do we go about creating a learning activity if we don’t
find an existing one?

“Planning a learning activity” should mean planning an effective

learning activity, and in particular that means something that
people can and will engage with. In short, an appropriate learning
activity may be one that you already do! At the very least, current
activities can provide a “seed” for even more effective ones.
But when entering unfamiliar territory, it can be difficult to
know where to begin. And remember the bottlenecks mentioned
above? When you run into difficulty, ask yourself: why is this
hard? You might try adapting Z S’ 
, and make a list of limiting factors, obstacles, etc., then cross
off those which you can find a strategy to deal with (add an an-
notation as to why). For example, you might decide to overcome
your lack of knowledge in some area by hiring a tutor or expert
consultant, or by putting in the hours learning things the hard
way (Zed would particularly approve of this choice). If you can’t
find a strategy to deal with some issue, presumably you can table
it, at least for a while.
Strategic thinking like this works well for one person. What
about when you’re planning activities for someone else? Here
you have to be careful: remember, this is peer learning, not tradi-
tional “teaching” or “curriculum design”. The first rule of thumb
for peer learning is: don’t plan activities for others unless you plan
to to take part as a fully engaged participant. Otherwise, in you
might be more interested in the literature on collaborative learn-
ing, which has often been deployed to good effect within a stan-
dard pedagogical context (see e.g. Bruffee [1]). In a peer learning
A  137

setting, everyone will have something to say about “what do you

need to do” and “why is it hard,” and everyone is likely to be in-
terested in everyone else’s answer as well as their own.
For example, in a mathematics learning context, you would be
likely to find people…

• solving textbook-style problems;

• finding and sharing new research problems;

• asking questions when something seems too difficult;

• fixing expository material to respond to critique;

• offering critique and review of proposed solutions;

• offering constructive feedback to questions (e.g. hints);

• organizing material into structured collections;

• working on applications to real-world problems;

• doing “meta” research activities that analyse “what works”

for any and all of the above.

Each one of those activities may be “hard” for one reason or an-
other. As a system the different activities tend to depend on one
another. If you have people working in a “student role” but no
one who can take on a “TA role”, things will be more difficult for
the students. As a (co-)organizer, part of your job is to try to make
sure all of the relevant roles are covered by someone (who may in
the end wear many hats). You can further decompose each role
into specific concrete activities. They might be accompanied by
instructions that say: “How to write a good critique” or “How to
write a proof ”. They might come in the form of accessible exer-
cises (where “accessible” depends on the person). Depending on
the features of the learning context, you may be able to support
the written instructions or exercises with live/in-person feedback
(e.g. meta-critique to coach and guide novice critics, a demon-
stration, etc.).
138 A 

One scenario: building activities for the Peeragogy

Handbook
Adding a bunch of activities to the handbook won’t solve all
of our usability issues, but more activities would help. We can
think about each article or section from this perspective:
1. When looking at this piece of text, what type of knowledge
are we (and the reader) trying to gain? Technical skills, or
abstract skills? What’s the point?
2. What’s difficult here? What might be difficult for someone
else?
3. What learning activity recipes or models might be appro-
priate? (See e.g. [2], [3].)
4. What customizations do we need for this particular appli-
cation?
As a quick example: designing a learning activity for the cur-
rent page
1. We want to be able to come up with effective learning activ-
ities, for instance, to accompany a “how to” article for peer
learners. These activities will extend from from the written
word to the world of action.
2. It might be difficult for some of us to “unplug” from all the
reading and writing that we’re habituated to doing. But peer
learning isn’t just about the exchange of text: there are lots
and lots of ways to learn.
3. Like Tom in “A pattern story”, it could be useful to apply an
existing set of skills to a new problem.
4. The proposed handbook activity is to simply step away from
the handbook for a while. Look for some examples of peer
learning in everyday life. When you’ve gained an insight
about peer from your own experience, come back and create
a related activity to accompany another handbook page!
A  139

References
1. Bruffee, Kenneth A. (1984). “Collaborative learning and the
conversation of mankind.” College English 46.7, 635-652

2. KS TK

3. D E  I S (particu-

larly the section on “Teaching Strategies for Actively En-
gaging Students in the Classroom”)
  18

THE STUDENT AUTHORED SYLLABUS

Author: Suz Burroughs

In either formal learning, informal learning or models which
transition between the two, there are many opportunities for
learners to co-create the syllabus and/or outline their own course
of action. The sage on the stage of formal instruction must become
at the most a guide on the side who acts as a coach appearing only
when needed rather than as a lecturer who determines the content
that the learners need to master. In the following inspirational but
certainly not prescriptive examples, we will focus on co-learning
methods drawn from a Social Constructivist perspective, which
fits nicely here.
We offer a few examples below to show a range of learner
centered approaches. They all are based on co-learners hosting
each other for one of a number of digestible topics in the larger
subject area or domain that the group formed in order to explore.
This can take place across a number of media and timelines.
The following methods will result in each co-learner gain-
ing deep knowledge in a specific topic and moderate knowledge
across several topics. The unique joy of this approach is that no
two cohorts will ever be the same. The content will always be
fresh, relevant, and changing. A group can even reconvene with
slightly or dramatically different topics over and over using the
same underlying process.
The appropriateness of the learner-created syllabus technique
depends on two factors: 1) the involvement of experts in the
group and 2) the level of proficiency of the group. In general,
novices who may or may not have a deep interest in the sub-
ject matter benefit from more structure and experts who point
to key concepts and texts. An example of this is the university
survey course for first or second year students who, we assume,
need more guidance as they enter the subject matter. Graduate

141
142 T   

seminars are generally much more fluid, open dialogues between

motivated experts require little structure or guidance.
We also need effective methods for groups which contain
novices, experts, and everyone in between. In groups with a wide
range of expertise, it is important that each co-learner chooses
to focus their deep inquiry on a topic that they are less familiar
with. This will even out the expertise level across the cohort as
well as ensure that a co-learner is neither bored nor dominating
the dialogue.

3 example designs to structure the learning

Weekly topics structure
One way to structure the course is to have each co-learner
host a topic each week. Perhaps multiple students host their top-
ics in the same week. This progression provides a rotation of pre-
sentations and activities to support the entire group in engaging
with the topics and challenges to the thinking of the presenters
in a constructive and respectful manner.

Pro: co-learners have discrete timelines and manage-

able chunks of responsibility.
Con: the format may become disjointed, and the
depth of inquiry will likely be somewhat shallow.

Milestone based structure

In this structure, each co-learner host their topics in parallel
with similar activities and milestones that the whole group moves
through together. Milestones can be set for a certain date, or the
group can unlock their next milestone whenever all participants
have completed the previous milestone. This second milestone
timeline can be great for informal groups where participation lev-
els may vary from week to week due to external factors, and the
sense of responsibility and game-like levels can be motivating for
many co-learners.
T    143

Each co-learner may start with a post of less than 500 words
introducing the topic on a superficial level. When everyone has
done this, the group might move on to posting questions to the
post authors. Then, there may be a summary post of the activity
so far with critical recommendations or insights.

Pro: co- learners have more time to digest a topic, for-

mulate a complex schema, and generate deeper ques-
tions.
Con: it will be a few weeks before the topic level
schema can form into a broader understanding of the
subject matter or domain (seeing the big picture takes
longer).

Relay learning structure.

This is similar to the milestone structure. However, co-
learners rotate topics. If one learner posts an introductory write-
up on a topic the first cycle, they may be researching questions
on another topic in the next cycle, posting a summary in a third,
and then posting a summary on their original topic in the fourth.

Pro: co-learners can experience responsibility for sev-

eral topics.
Con: co-learners may receive a topic that is poorly
researched or otherwise neglected.

Content
A vast number of topics
Within a subject of mutual interest to a group, there are a
considerable number of topics or questions. What is important
is that each co-learner can take responsibility for a reasonably
narrow area given the duration of the course or the timeline of
the group. Areas that are too broad will result in a very super-
ficial understanding, and areas that are too narrow will result in
144 T   

a dull experience. For example, in marine biology, topics such as

“the inter-tidal zone” may be too broad for a course cycle of a few
weeks. Narrowing to one species may be too specific for a course
over a few months.

Learner generated topics

Most cohorts will have some knowledge of the shared area
of interest or an adjacent area. It is a good idea to respect the
knowledge and experience that each member of the group brings
to the table. A facilitator or coordinator may generate a list of
potential topic areas, setting an example of the scale of a topic.
We suggest that the participants in the group are also polled for
additions to the list. In large courses, sending out a Google Form
via email can be an effective way to get a quick list with a high
response rate.

Expert informed topics

If there is no expert facilitator in the group, we suggest that
the cohort begin their journey with a few interviews of experts to
uncover what the main buzz words and areas of focus might be.
One way to locate this type of expert help is through contacting
authors in the subject matter on social networks, reviewing their
posts for relevance, and reaching out with the request.
We recommend two people interview the expert over video
chat, for example in a Hangout. One person conducts the in-
terview, and one person takes notes and watches the time. We
strongly suggest that the interview be outlined ahead of time:

Warm up: Who are you, what are your goals, and why
do you think this interview will help?
Foundational questions: Ask a few questions that
might elicit short answers to build rapport and get
your interviewee talking.
Inquiry: What people say and what they do can of-
ten be very different. Ask about topics required for
T    145

mastery of the subject matter (e.g. What are the ar-

eas someone would need to know about to be consid-
ered proficient in this subject?). Also, ask 
  . Avoid  or
 .
Wrap up: Thank the interviewee for his or her time,
and be sure to follow up by sharing both what you
learned and what you accomplished because he or she
helped you.

Shared goals and group norms

Choosing useful outputs
Getting together for the sake of sharing what you know in an
informal way can be fairly straightforward and somewhat use-
ful. Most groups find that a common purpose and output that
are explicitly defined and documented help to engage, motivate,
and drive the group. For the examples above, the group may de-
cide to create a blog with posts on the various topics or create
a wiki where they can share their insights. Other outputs can
include community service projects, business proposals, recom-
mendations to senior management or administration, new prod-
ucts, and more. The key is to go beyond sharing for sharing sake
and move toward an output that will be of use beyond the co-
learning group. This activity is best described in C
theory as the special case of networked learning where we find
evidence of learning in collective action and/or behavioral change
in groups rather than a psychological or neurological process in
individuals.

Group cohesion (a.k.a. the rules of the road)

One challenge of this kind of collaboration is that each group
will need to decide on norms, acceptable practices and behaviors.
Culturally diverse groups in particular may run into communica-
146 T   

tion or other issues unless there is a way to create shared expec-

tations and communicate preferences.
One way to do this is with a team charter. This is a living
document where the initial rules of engagement can live for ref-
erence. The group may add or edit this document over time based
on experience, and that is a welcome thing! This documentation
is a huge asset for new members joining the group who want to
contribute quickly and effectively. Any co-editing word process-
ing program will work, but we strongly recommend something
that can be edited simultaneously and that lives in the cloud.
(Google Docs is convenient because you can also embed your
Charter into another site.)
Try starting with the following three sections, and allow some
time for the group to co-edit and negotiate the document between
icebreakers and kicking off the official learning process.

Mission: Why are you forming the group? What do

you want to accomplish together?
Norms: Use ? No ? Post your
vacation days to a  ? Other cultural
norms?
Members: It is useful to include a photo and a link to a
public profile such as Twitter, Google+ or Facebook.

Assessments and feedback loops

Co-authored assessment rubrics
Tests. Quizzes. Exams. How can the co-learning group assess
their performance?
These types of courses benefit from an approach similar to
coaching. Set goals as individuals and a group in the beginning,
define what success looks like, outline steps that are needed to
achieve the goal, check in on the goal progress periodically, and
assess the results at the end of the course against the goal criteria.
Goals may include domain expertise, a business outcome, a paper
T    147

demonstrating mastery, a co-created resource, or even the quality

of collaboration and adherence to shared group norms.

Learner created assessments

Another effective way to create an assessment is to decide on
an individual or group output and create a peer assessment rubric
based on the goals of the individual or group.
One way to create a rubric is to spend some time defining the
qualities you want your output to have based on positive exam-
ples. Perhaps a group wants to create a blog. Each person on
the team may identify the qualities of a great blog post based on
examples that they admire. They can use that example to create
a criteria for assessment of co-learner authored blog posts. We
recommend that the criteria have a 0 to 5 point scale with 0 being
non-existent and 5 being superb. Writing a few indicators in the
1, 3, and 5 columns helps to calibrate reviewers.
Create a  , perhaps starting with a list of
criteria. Collapse similar criteria into one item, and create the in-
dicators or definitions of 1, 3, and 5 point performance. Agree on
the rubric, and decide on how the co-learners will be assigned as-
sessment duties. WIll everyone review at least two others? Will
each co-learner product need at least 3 reviewers before it goes
live? Will you use a  or a  to collect the assess-
ments?
In a university setting, the instructor of record may wish to
approve a peer assessment rubric, and it is sometimes a good idea
to have a few outside experts give feedback on criteria that the
group may have missed.

Outside assessments
It is possible that an instructor of record or similar author-
ity will create the assessment for performance. In these cases, it
is crucial that the co-learners have access to the grading rubric
ahead of time so that they can ensure their activities and timeline
will meet any requirements. In this case, it may be possible to
148 T   

require that the co-learners self-organize entirely, or there may

be intermediary assignments such as the charter, project plan or
literary review.

Cyclical use of these models

So much more to learn
As mentioned above, the joy of this type of learning is that
no two groups will ever do it the same. Their process, goals, and
outcomes can all be unique. As designers and facilitators of this
type of learning environment, we can say it is a wild ride! Each
class is exciting, refreshing, and on trend. The co-learners become
our teachers.
If a group generates more topics than it is possible to cover
at one time given the number of group members or if a group
has plans to continue indefinitely, it is always possible to set up a
system where potential topics are collected at all times. These un-
explored topics can be harvested for use in another learning cycle,
continuing until the group achieves comprehensive mastery.

Risks
This format is not without its own unique pitfalls: some chal-
lenges are learner disorientation or frustration in a new learning
structure with ambiguous expectations and uneven participation.
Some groups simply never gel, and we do not know why they have
failed to achieve the cohesion required to move forward. Other
groups are the exact opposite. Here are a few risks to consider
if you would like to try the methods suggested here and how to
mitigate them.

Uneven expertise: Ask co-learners to be responsible

for topics that are new to them.
Uneven participation and cohesion: Ask co-learners
what they want to do to motivate the group rather
than imposing your own ideas.
T    149

Experts/facilitators that kill the conversation: In the

charter or other documentation, explicitly state that
the purpose of the discussion is to further the conver-
sation, and encourage experts to allow others to ex-
plore their own thinking by asking probing (not lead-
ing) questions.
Ambiguous goals: Encourage the group to document
their mission and what they will do as a team. This
can change over time, but it is best to start out with a
clear purpose.

Conclusion
Make mistakes. Correct course. Invite new perspectives. Cre-
ate a structure that everyone can work with. Change it when it
breaks. Most of all, have fun!
  19

CONNECTIVISM IN PRACTICE — HOW TO

ORGANIZE A CMOOC

Author: Roland Legrand

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are online learning
events that can take place synchronously and asynchronously for
months. Participants assemble to hear, see, and participate in
backchannel communication during live lectures. They read the
same texts at the same time, according to a calendar. Learning
takes place through self-organized networks of participants, and
is almost completely decentralized: individuals and groups cre-
ate blogs or wikis around their own interpretations of the texts
and lectures, and comment on each other’s work; each individ-
ual and group publicises their RSS feed, which are automatically
aggregated by a special (freely available) tool, gRSShopper. Ev-
ery day, an email goes out to all participants, aggregating activity
streams from all the blogs and wikis that engage that week’s ma-
terial. MOOCs are a practical application of a learning theory
known as “connectivism” that situates learning in the networks
of connections made between individuals and between texts.
Not all MOOCs are Connectivist MOOCs (or cMOOCs). Plat-
forms such as C, X and U offering MOOCs
which follow a more traditional, centralized approach (these are
sometimes called xMOOCs). In this type of MOOC, a professor
is taking the lead and the learning-experience is organized top-
down. However, some xMOOCs seem to adopt a more blended
approach. For instance, the course E  D C
 makes use of online spaces beyond the Coursera environ-
ment, and the course organizers want some aspects of participa-
tion in this course to involve the wider social web.
In this chapter we’ll focus on cMOOCs. One might wonder
why a course would want to be ‘massive’ and what ’massive’

151
152 H  O  MOOC

means. cMOOC-pioneer Stephen Downes explains that his fo-

cus is on the development of a network structure, as opposed to
a group structure, to manage the course. In a network structure
there isn’t any central focus, for example, a central discussion.
That’s also the reason why he considers the figure of 150 active
participants – Dunbar’s Number – to be the lower cut-off in order
to talk about ‘massive’:

Stephen Downes: Why Dunbar’s number? The rea-

son is that it represents the maximum (theoretical)
number of people a person can reasonably interact
with. How many blogs can a person read, follow and
respond to? Maybe around 150, if Dunbar is correct.
Which means that if we have 170 blogs, then the blogs
don’t constitute a ‘core’ - people begin to be selective
about which blogs they’re reading, and different (and
interacting) subcommunities can form.

A learning theory for the digital age

Traditionally, scholars distinguish between three main 
   : behaviorism, cognitivism and con-
structivism. Stephen Downes and others would add a fourth one:
, but this is . The central application of
connectivism to date is as a theory of what happens in Massive
Open Online Courses.
The connectivist theory describes learning as a process of cre-
ating connections and developing networks. It is based on the
premise that knowledge exists out in the world, rather than in-
side an individual’s mind. Connectivism sees the network as a
central metaphor for learning, with a node in the network being
a concept (data, feelings, images, etc.) that can be meaningfully
related to other nodes. Not all connections are of equal strength
in this metaphor; in fact, many connections may be quite weak.
On a practical level, this approach recommends that learning
should focus on where to find information (streams), and how to
evaluate and mash up those streams, rather than trying to en-
H  O  MOOC 153

ter lots of (perishable) information into one’s skull. Knowing the

pipes is more important than knowing what exactly each pipe
contains at a given moment. This is the theory. The practice
takes place in Connectivist MOOCs (cMOOCs), like C11.
Here, people are free to participate at will. Each week a subject is
discussed during synchronous sessions, which are recorded and
uploaded for reference on the Change11 website. The site also in-
cludes an archive of daily newsletters and RSS-feeds of blog posts
and tweets from participants.
cMOOCs tend to be learner-centered. People are encouraged
to pursue their own interests and link up with others who might
help them. But the distributed and free nature of the projects
also leads to complaints; participants often find it confusing when
they attempt to follow up on all the discussions (the facilitators
say one should not try to follow up on all the content).

Stephen Downes: This implies a pedagogy that (a)

seeks to describe ‘successful’ networks (as identified
by their properties, which I have characterized as di-
versity, autonomy, openness, and connectivity); and
(b) seeks to describe the practices that lead to such
networks, both in the individual and in society (which
I have characterized as modeling and demonstration
(on the part of a teacher) and practice and reflection
(on the part of a learner).

Anatomy of a cMOOC
One example of a MOOC that claims to embody the connec-
tivist theory is ... The “  ” section
of the site explains what connectivism means in practice. The
MOOC organizers developed a number of ways to combine the
distributed nature of the discussions with the need for a con-
stantly updated overview and for a federated structure. So, if
your team wants to organize an open online course, these are five
points to take into consideration:
154 H  O  MOOC

There is no body of content the participants have to memo-

rize, but the learning results from activities they undertake. The
activities are different for each person. A course schedule with
suggested reading, assignments for synchronous or asynchronous
sessions is provided (e.g. using Google Docs spreadsheets inter-
nally, Google Calendar externally; one could also use a wiki), but
participants are free to pick and choose what they work on. Nor-
mally there is a topic, activities, reading resources and often a
guest speaker for each week. One should even reflect upon the
question whether a start- and end date are actually needed. It is
crucial to explain the particular philosophy of this kind of MOOC,
and this right from the outset, because chances are learners will
come with expectations informed by their more traditional learn-
ing experiences.

1. It is important to discuss the “internal” aspects, such as self-

motivation: what do the participants want to achieve, what
is their larger goal? And what are their intentions when
they select certain activities (rather than other possibili-
ties)? Everyone has her own intended outcome. Suggest
that participants meditate on all this and jot down their ob-
jectives. And how can they avoid becoming stressed out
and getting depressed because they feel they cannot “keep
up with all this?” The facilitators should have a good look
at these motivations, even if it’s impossible to assist every
participant individually (for large-scale MOOCs).

2. Ideally, participants should prepare for this course by ac-

quiring the necessary digital skills. Which skills are “nec-
essary” can be decided by the group itself in advance. It’s
all about selecting, choosing, remixing - also called “curat-
ing”. There are lots of tools which you can use for this:
blogs, social bookmarks, wikis, mindmaps, forums, social
dashboards, networks such as Twitter with their possibili-
ties such as hashtags and lists. Maybe these tools are self-
evident for some, but not necessarily for all the participants.
H  O  MOOC 155

3. The course is not located in one place but is distributed

across the web: on various blogs and blogging platforms, on
various groups and online networks, on photo- and video-
sharing platforms, on mindmaps and other visualization
platforms, on various tools for synchronous sessions. This
wide variety is in itself an important learning element.

4. There are weekly synchronous sessions (using Blackboard

collaborate, or similar group chatting tool). During these
sessions, experts and participants give presentations and
enter into discussions. Groups of participants also have
synchronous meetings at other venues (such as Second
Life). Try to plan this well in advance!

5. Many participants highly appreciate efforts to give an

overview of the proceedings. Specifically, the D
N is a kind of hub, a community newspaper. In
that Daily there is also a list of the blog posts mentioning
the course-specific tag (e.g. “Change11”), also the tweets
with hashtag #change11 are listed in the Daily. Of course,
the MOOC has a  where sessions, newsletters and other
resources are archived and discussion threads can be read.

From the very beginning of the course, it’s necessary to explain

the importance of tagging the various contributions, to suggest a
hashtag.
For harvesting all this distributed content, Stephen Downes
advocates the use of RSS, which is a personal web en-
vironment that combines resource aggregation, a personal datas-
pace, and personal publishing (Downes developed it and would
like to build a hosted version - eventually financed via Kick-
starter). The gRSShopper can be found on a registration page,
which is useful primarily for sending the newsletter. It allows
you to organize your online content any way you want, to import
content - your own or others’ - from remote sites, to remix and
repurpose it, and to distribute it as RSS, web pages, JSON data, or
RSS feeds.
156 H  O  MOOC

Stephen Downes: For example, the gRSShopper har-

vester will harvest a link from a given feed. A per-
son, if he or she has admin privileges, can transform
this link into a post, adding his or her own comments.
The post will contain information about the original
link’s author and journal. Content in gRSShopper is
created and manipulated through the use of system
code that allows administrators to harvest, map, and
display data, as well as to link to and create their own
content. gRSShopper is also intended to act as a fully-
fledged publishing tool.

Alternatives for registrations: Google Groups for instance.

But specific rules about privacy should be dealt with: what will be
the status of the contributions? In this MOOC the status is public
and open by default, for Downes this is an important element of
the course.

Technologies
Some MOOCs use Moodle, but Downes dislikes the central-
ization aspect and it’s not as open as it could be, saying “people
feel better writing in their own space.” Other possibilities: Google
Groups, Wordpress, Diigo, Twitter, Facebook page, Second Life;
but each course uses different mixtures of the many tools out
there. People choose their environment - whether it is WoW or
Minecraft. Students use Blogger, WordPress, Tumblr, Posterous
as blogging tools.

RSS harvesting is a key element

Give participants a means to contribute their blogfeed. In
“A  N F,” Downes explains how to get this structure and
additional explanations (via videos) in order to contribute their
blog feed. The administrator in this case uses gRSShopper to pro-
cess the content and put it in a database, process it and send it to
other people. Alternatively one can use Google Reader (the list
H  O  MOOC 157

of feeds is available as an OPML file - which can be imported to

other platforms). There is also a plug-in for Wordpress that lets
you use a Google Doc spreadsheet for the feeds, then Wordpress
for the aggregation). Many other content management systems
have RSS harvesting features.
Each individual could run her own aggregator, but Downes
offers it as a service. But aggregators are needed, whether indi-
vidual, centralized or both.

Specialized harvesting
Using Twitter, Diigo, Delicious, Google Groups, If This Then
That (IFTTT) and F43 (take ordinary web page and turn it into
an RSS feed).

Synchronous environments
Synchronous platforms include Blackboard Collaborate (used
now for Change11); Adobe Connect; Big Blue Button; WizIQ;
Fuze; WebX; webcasting; web radio; videoconferencing with
Skype or Google Hangout in conjunction with Livestream or us-
tream.tv. Or take the Skype/Hangout audiostream and broadcast
is as webradio. Set up and test ahead of time, but don’t hesitate
to experiment. Note also, there is a more extensive discussion of
real-time tools in another section of the handbook.

Newsletter or Feeds
Feeds are very important (see earlier remarks about the Daily
newsletter). You can use Twitter or a Facebook page, Downes uses
email, also creates an RSS version through gRSShopper and sends
it through Ifttt.com back to Facebook and Twitter. For the rest
of us there is Wordpress, which you can use to   
 . Downs also suggests this handy guide on  
        
!
158 H  O  MOOC

Consider using a content management system and databases

to put out specialized pages and the newsletter in an elegant way,
but it requires a learning curve. Otherwise, use blogs / wikis.

The Use of Comments

Participants are strongly encouraged to comment on each oth-
ers’ blogs and to launch discussion threads. By doing so they prac-
tice a fundamental social media skill - developing networks by
commenting on various places and engaging in conversations. It
is important to have activities and get people to be involved rather
than sit back. For an in-depth presentation, have a look at F
  M O O C by Stephen Downes, in
which he focuses on research and survey issues, preparing events,
and other essentials.

Resources
• Change MOOC: H  C W

• W   MOOC (video)

• S   MOOC (video)

• K   MOOC (video)

• I   (video)

  20

CASE STUDY: COLLABORATIVE EXPLORATIONS

Part I (by Peter Taylor).

Collaborative Exploration invites participants to shape their
own directions of inquiry and develop their skills as investigators
and teachers (in the broadest sense of the word). The basic mode
of a Collaborative Exploration centers on interactions over a de-
limited period of time in small groups. Engagement takes place
either online, for instance via Google+, or face-to-face. The aim is
to create an experience of re-engagement with oneself as an avid
learner and inquirer. This section combines practical information
about how to run Collaborative Explorations as well as ideas and
questions about how to make sense of what happens in them. A
companion entry conveys one participant’s experience with sev-
eral Collaborative Explorations (hereafter, “CE”).

Overview and contrast to cMOOCs

The tangible goal of any CE is to develop contributions to the
topic defined by the “case”, which is written by the host or origi-
nator of the CE in advance, and which is intended to be broad and
thought-provoking (some examples are given below). We aim for
a parallel experiential goal, which is that we hope participants
will be impressed at how much can be learned with a small com-
mitment of time using this structure. The standard model for an
online CE is to have four sessions spaced one week apart, in which
the same small group interacts in real time via the internet, for an
hour per session. Participants are asked to spend at least 90 min-
utes between sessions on self-directed inquiry into the case, and
to share their inquiries-in-progress with their small group and a
wider community. Reflection typically involves shifts in partic-

159
160 C S: C E

ipants’ definition of what they want to find out and how. Any
participants wondering how to define a meaningful and useful
line of inquiry are encouraged to review the scenario for the CE,
any associated materials, posts from other participants, and think
about what they would like to learn more about or dig deeper into.
Everyone is left, in the end, to judge for themselves whether what
interests them is meaningful and useful. During the live sessions,
participants can expect to do a lot of listening, starting off in the
first session with autobiographical stories that make it easier to
trust and take risks with whoever has joined that CE, and a lot of
writing to gather their thoughts, sometimes privately, sometimes
shared. There is no assumption that participants will pursue the
case beyond the limited duration of the CE. This said, the tools and
processes that the CE employs for purposes of inquiry, dialogue,
reflection, and collaboration are designed to be readily learned
by participants, and to translate well into other settings – for in-
stance, where they can be used to support the inquiries of others.
In short, online CEs are moderate-sized open online collaborative
learning. It remains to be seen whether the CE “movement” will
attract enough participants to scale up to multiple learning com-
munities around any given scenario, each hosted by a different
person and running independently. A MOOC (massive open on-
line course) seeks to get masses of people registered, knowing that
a tiny fraction will complete it, while CE best practices focus on
establishing effective learning in small online communities, and
then potentially scale up from there by multiplying out. CEs aim
to address the needs of online learners who want to:
• dig deeper, make “thicker” connections with other learners
• connect topics with their own interests
• participate for short periods of time
• learn without needing credits or badges
Currently, even the most high-profile MOOCs do not appear to
be conducive to deep or thick inquiry. For example, while link-
sharing is typical in “connectivist” or “cMOOCs”, annotation and
C S: C E 161

discussion of the contents is less common. By contrast, CEs are

structured to elicit participants’ thoughtful reflections and syn-
theses. The use of the internet for CEs, in contrast, is guided by
two principles of online education (Taylor 2007).

• Use computers first and foremost to teach or learn things

that are difficult to teach or learn with pedagogical ap-
proaches that are not based on computers

• Model computer use, at least initially, on known best prac-

tices for teaching/learning without computers.

Thus, CEs bring in participants from a distance, make rapid con-

nections with informants or discussants outside the course, and
contribute to evolving guides to materials and resources. At
the same time, participants benefit from the support of instruc-
tors/facilitators and peers who they can trust, and integrate what
they learn with their own personal, pedagogical, and professional
development.

Example scenarios or “cases”

Connectivist MOOCs: Learning and collaboration,
possibilities and limitations
The core faculty member of a graduate program at a public
urban university wants help as they decide how to contribute to
efforts at the university program to promote open digital educa-
tion. It is clear that the emphasis will not be on xMOOCs, i.e.,
those designed for transmission of established knowledge, but on
cMOOCs. In other words, the plan is to emphasize connectivist
learning and community development emerges around, but may
extend well beyond, the materials provided by the MOOC hosts
(Morrison 2013; Taylor 2013). What is not yet clear about is just
how learning works in cMOOCs. What are the possibilities and
limitations of this educational strategy? How do they bear on
themes like creativity, community, collaboration, and openness?
162 C S: C E

The program is especially interested in anticipating any undesir-

able consequences…

Science and policy that would improve responses to extreme

climatic events
Recent and historical climate-related events shed light on the
social impact of emergency plans, investment in and maintenance
of infrastructure, as well as investment in reconstruction. Policy
makers, from the local level up, can learn from the experiences of
others and prepare for future crises. The question for this case is
how to get political authorities and political groups—which might
be anywhere from the town level to the international, from the
elected to the voluntary—interested in learning about how best
to respond to extreme climatic events. Changes might take place
at the level of policy, budget, organization, and so on. It should
even be possible to engage people who do not buy into the idea
of human-induced climate change—after all, whatever the cause,
extreme climatic events have to be dealt with….

The structure
Independent of the topic, we’ve found the following common
structure useful for our online CEs. Before the first live session:
Participants review the scenario, the expectations and mechanics,
join a special-purpose Google+ community and get set up techni-
cally for the hangouts.
Session 1: Participants getting to know each other. After freewrit-
ing to clarify thoughts and hopes, followed by a quick check-in,
participants take 5 minutes each to tell the story of how they came
to be a person who would be interested to participate in a Col-
laborative Exploration on the scenario. Other participants note
connections with the speaker and possible ways to extend their
interests, sharing these using an online form.
Between-session work: Spend at least 90 minutes on inquiries re-
lated to the case, posting about this to google+ community for the
C S: C E 163

CE, and reviewing the posts of others.

Session 2: Clarify thinking and inquiries. Freewriting on one’s
thoughts about the case, followed by a check-in, then turn-taking
“dialogue process” to clarify what participants are thinking about
their inquiries into the case. Session finishes with gathering and
sharing thoughts using an online form.
Between-session work: Spend at least 90 minutes (a) on inquiries
related to the case and (b) preparing a work-in-progress presen-
tation.
Session 3: Work-in-progress presentations. 5 minutes for each par-
ticipant, with “plus-delta” feedback given by everyone on each
presentation. Between-session work: Digest the feedback on one’s
presentation and revise it into a self-standing product (i.e., one
understandable without spoken narration).
Session 4: Taking Stock. Use same format as for session 2 to ex-
plore participants’ thinking about (a) how the Collaborative Ex-
ploration contributed to the topic (the tangible goal) and to the
experiential goal, as well as (b) how to extend what has emerged
during the CE.
After session 4 (optional): Participants share on a public Google+
community not only the products they have prepared, but also
reflections on the Collaborative Exploration process.

How to make sense of what happens in CEs

(Re-)engagement with oneself as an avid learner and inquirer
in CEs is made possible by the combination of:

• Processes and tools used for inquiry, dialogue, reflection,

and collaboration;

• Connections made among the diverse participants who

bring to bear diverse interests, skills, knowledge, experi-
ence, and aspirations; and
164 C S: C E

Figure 1. Triad of aspects of Collaborative Exploration

Contributions from the participants to the topics laid out in sce-

narios
The hope is that through experiencing a (re-)engagement with
learning, participants will subsequently transfer experience with
this triad (Figure 1) into their own inquiries and teaching-learning
interactions, the ways that they support inquiries of others; other
practices of critical intellectual exchange and cooperation; and
that they will be more prepared to challenge the barriers to learn-
ing that are often associated with expertise, location, time, gender,
race, class, or age.

Acknowledgements
The comments of Jeremy Szteiter and the contributions of the
participants of the 2013 Collaborative Explorations have helped
in the preparation of this article.

Part II (by Teryl Cartwright).

As a May graduate of the Master’s program in Critical and
Creative Thinking (CCT) at UMass Boston, I owe my gratitude
to Professors Peter Taylor and Jeremy Szteiter for inviting me to
informally continue my education less than a month later. It is a
tribute to them that I would then take four consecutive CEs with-
out stopping. They can best share how to run a CE, but as a “stu-
dent,” it is how to creatively take a CE that inspires what I’d like
to share.
C S: C E 165

June 2013 CE: Scaffolding Creative Learning

I was grateful participants took the time to post links and ideas
to support my inquiries, yet something else intrigued me about
the potential of Collaborative Exploration. Luanne Witkowski,
an artist and one of the CCT instructors, took our ideas and made
a diagram incorporating our scaffolding concepts together; she
changed her own original drawing to include all of ours. I wanted
to pay forward and back my learning too, so I combined the ideas
of all the participants, adapted and taught a lesson outside the
CE and then shared the results. From this jumping into someone
else’s scaffolding, I went into even more experimental learning in
the next CE.

July 2013 CE: Design in Critical Thinking

In a second CE, I took the title literally and developed a
design IN critical thinking. To try out my triangle tangent
thinking model, during a lesson on leadership in church, I sud-
denly stopped teaching a classroom of older professional adults
halfway in and asked them to participate in “design as you go”
curriculum—by taking over the class.
Since I wanted to be fair, along with my lesson outline I had al-
ready given them a supposed “icebreaker” activity that they could
teach from, although they also had the option of my continued
teaching. Results? My triangle drawing works as a lesson plan;
the class took the tangent, but surprisingly, I wasn’t just rele-
gated to moderator, it became a true co-facilitation,a model of
change at the midpoint for both the individual and community
in the choices and direction.

September 2013 CE: Everyone Can Think Creatively

This CE had to be commended for its participants humoring
my project and allowing the exploration of testing a CE itself. Was
it possible to be a Creative Failure in a Creativity CE? To evaluate
“Creative Failure in a Creativity CE,”
166 C S: C E

I used a simple test. If creative success (unknowingly given by

my CE community) was a product both “novel AND useful,” any
post without a comment was a failure (“not useful”) to my read-
ers. Any post that a reader commented was similar to something
else already done was “useful,” but not novel. Failure had me post-
ing again. Did I mention what nice people these were when they
didn’t know what I was doing?
It would have been easy for them to ignore my continued post-
ing, yet the community of a CE cannot be praised enough. They
were supportive of me and finding academic colleagues who have
a sense of humor is mercifully not novel, but extremely useful in
this experience.

October 2013 CE: Stories to Scaffold Creative

Learning
In this CE I gave myself the challenge of indirect teaching.
Could I be a story “shower”, not teller? I took concepts important
to me about teaching with story, yet also tried to leave space for
others’ interpretations. Ironically, in some ways creative failure
continued—again I was not as helpful as I had wished.
This CE also had a twist—no hero stories allowed, so my cre-
ative and personal stories had to be ambiguous or use other con-
necting structures based on the participants’ preferences. It was
interesting which stories worked best—fiction worked more with
humor, real experience worked if I shared about someone other
than myself and other kinds worked with visuals.Collaborative
Explorations provide a safe space for the joint learning and teach-
ing to occur.
The diversity blends well into a community that is curious,
courageous and creative. Although I have my M.A. as the first
completely online CCT student, I found almost a face-to-face
learning “feel” in their deeply connected CE community as well.
It does require time, openness and commitment to each other
during the intense focus together on a topic. Yet seeing where
the participant-directed ‘design as you go’ curriculum ends up is
C S: C E 167

worth investing in and sharing with others. After all, there are
many other ways still out there to try out CEs.

Postscript. I also ran a CE for the Susquehanna Conference of

the UMC for 10 days, working with a group of professionals ex-
ploring a call into ordained ministry. Going in cold, I had to work
harder to do community building without the Google hangout
meetings and recommend their inclusion to increase the comfort
level and participation of the group members.

Resources
Further examples of CE scenarios can be viewed at
://../CE. Recommended readings listed
at the end of the book convey some of the sources for the CE pro-
cesses. Ideas about possible extensions of CEs can be viewed in
the full prospectus at ://../CE.

References
1. Morrison, D. (2013). “A    MOOC @ C:
D  ”.

2. Taylor, P. J. (2007) “Guidelines for ensuring that educational

technologies are used only when there is significant peda-
gogical benefit,” International Journal of Arts and Sciences,
2 (1): 26-29, 2007 (adapted from ://./).

3. Taylor, P. J. (2013). “S   

”.
 Part VII

Cooperation
  21

INTRODUCTION TO COOPERATION:
CO-FACILITATION

Author: Maria Arenas, with contributions by Charlie Danoff

Facilitation is a process of helping groups work cooperatively
and effectively. Facilitation can be particularly helpful for indi-
viduals who, based on a certain level of insecurity or inexperi-
ence, tend to lurk rather than participate. At the same time, it
in peeragogy, a facilitator isn’t necessarily an “authority”: rather,
facilitation work is done in service to the group and the group di-
alogue and process. For example, a facilitator may simply “hold
space” for the group, by setting up a meeting or a regular series
of discussions.

Co-facilitating in peer-to-peer learning

Co-facilitation can be found in collaborations between two or
more people who need each other to complete a task, for exam-
ple, learn about a given subject, author a technical report, solve a
problem, or conduct research Dee Fink writes that “in this process,
there has to be some kind of change in the learner. No change,
no learning” [1]. Significant learning requires that there be some
kind of lasting change that is important in terms of the learner’s
life; in peeragogy, one way to measure the effectiveness of co-
facilitation is to look for a change in the peer group.
Co-facilitation roles can be found in groups/teams like bas-
ketball, health, Alcoholics Anonymous, spiritual groups, etc. For
example, self-help groups are composed of people who gather to
share common problems and experiences associated with a partic-
ular problem, condition, illness, or personal circumstance. There
are some further commonalities across different settings. Com-
menting on the work of Carl Rogers:

171
172 C

Godfrey Barrett-Lennard: The educational situation

which most effectively promotes significant learning
is one in which (1) threat to the self of the learner is
reduced a minimum, and (2) differentiated perception
of the field of experience is facilitated. [2]

Part of the facilitator’s role is to create a safe place for learning to

take place; but they should also challenge the participants.

John Heron: Too much hierarchical control, and par-

ticipants become passive and dependent or hostile
and resistant. They wane in self-direction, which is
the core of all learning. Too much cooperative guid-
ance may degenerate into a subtle kind of nurturing
oppression, and may deny the group the benefits of
totally autonomous learning. Too much autonomy
for participants and laissez-faire on your part, and
they may wallow in ignorance, misconception, and
chaos. [3]

Co-facilitating discussion forums

If peers are preparing a forum discussion, here are some ideas
from “T C T B”, that can be helpful as guide-
lines:

• Explain the importance of collaborative group work and

make it a requirement.
• Establish how you will communicate in the forum.
• Be aware of mutual blind spots in facilitating and observing
others.
• Watch out for different rhythms of intervention.

Co-facilitating wiki workflows

A good place to begin for any group of co-facilitators working
with a wiki are Wikipedia’s famous “5 Pillars.”
C 173

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

• Wikipedia writes articles from a neutral point-of-view.

• Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify,

and distribute.

• Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and

civil manner.

• Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

Co-facilitating live sessions

Learning experiences in live sessions are described in the arti-
cle L R: P, P, G, O
 by Howard Rheingold, and many of these points are revisited
in the handbook section on real-time tools. But we want to em-
phasize one point here:

Howard Rheingold: Remember you came together

with your peers to accomplish something, not to dis-
cuss an agenda or play with online tools; keep every-
thing as easily accessible as possible to ensure you
realize your goals.

References
1. Fink, L. D (2003). Creating significant learning experiences:
An integrated approach to designing college courses. John
Wiley & Sons.

2. Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1998). Carl Rogers’ Helping System:

Journey & Substance. Sage.

3. Heron, J. (1999). The complete facilitator’s handbook. Lon-

don: Kogan Page.
  22

THE WORKSCAPE, A LEARNING PLATFORM FOR

CORPORATIONS

Cultivating a results-oriented peer-learning program in a cor-

porate learning ecosystem involves a few tweaks of the approach
and tools we discussed in relation to more open, diverse networks.

The Workscape, a platform for learning

Formal learning takes place in classrooms; informal learning
happens in workscapes. A workscape is a learning ecology. As
the environment of learning, a workscape includes the workplace.
In fact, a workscape has no boundaries. No two workscapes are
alike. Your workscape may include being coached on giving effec-
tive presentations, calling the help desk for an explanation, and
researching an industry on the Net. My workscape could include
participating in a community of field technicians, looking things
up on a search engine, and living in France for three months. De-
veloping a platform to support informal learning is analogous to
landscaping a garden. A major component of informal learning
is natural learning, the notion of treating people as organisms in
nature. The people are free-range learners. Our role is to protect
their environment, provide nutrients for growth, and let nature
take its course. A landscape designer’s goal is to conceptualize
a harmonious, unified, pleasing garden that makes the most of
the site at hand. A workscape designer’s goal is to create a learn-
ing environment that increases the organization’s longevity and
health and the individual’s happiness and well-being. Gardeners
don’t control plants; managers don’t control people. Gardeners
and managers have influence but not absolute authority. They
can’t make a plant fit into the landscape or a person fit into a
team. In an ideal Workscape, workers can easily find the people

175
176 T W

and information they need, learning is fluid and new ideas flow
freely, corporate citizens live and work by the organization’s val-
ues, people know the best way to get things done, workers spend
more time creating value than handling exceptions, and everyone
finds their work challenging and fulfilling.

The technical infrastructure of the Workscape

When an organization is improving its Workscape, looking at
consumer applications is a good way to think about what’s re-
quired. Ask net-savvy younger workers how they would like to
learn new skills, and they bring up the features they enjoy in other
services:

• Personalize my experience and make recommendations,

like Amazon.

• Make it easy for me to connect with friends, like Facebook.

• Keep me in touch with colleagues and associates in other

companies, as on LinkedIn.

• Persistent reputations, as at eBay, so you can trust who

you’re collaborating with.

• Multiple access options, like a bank that offers access by

ATM, the Web, phone, or human tellers.

• Don’t overload me. Let me learn from YouTube, an FAQ, or

linking to an expert.

• Show me what’s hot, like Reddit, Digg, MetaFilter, or Fark

do.

• Give me single sign-on, like using my Facebook profile to

access multiple applications.

• Let me choose and subscribe to streams of information I’m

interested in, like BoingBoing, LifeHacker or Huffpost.
T W 177

• Provide a single, simple, all-in-one interface, like that pro-

vided by Google for search.

• Help me learn from a community of kindred spirits, like

SlashDot, Reddit, and MetaFilter.

• Give me a way to voice my opinions and show my person-

ality, as on my blog.

• Show me what others are interested in, as with social book-

marks like Diigo and Delicious.

• Make it easy to share photos and video, as on Flickr and

YouTube.

• Leverage “the wisdom of crowds,” as when I pose a question

to my followers on Twitter or Facebook.

• Enable users to rate content, like “Favoriting” an item on

Facebook or +!ing is on Google or YouTube.

Some of those consumer applications are simple to replicate in-

house. Others are not. You can’t afford to replicate Facebook
or Google behind your firewall. That said, there are lots of ap-
plications you can implement at reasonable cost. Be skeptical if
your collaborative infrastructure that doesn’t include these mini-
mal functions:
Profiles - for locating and contacting people with the right
skills and background. Profile should contain photo, position, lo-
cation, email address, expertise (tagged so it’s searchable). IBM’s
Blue Pages profiles include how to reach you (noting whether
you’re online now), reporting chain (boss, boss’s boss, etc.), link
to your blog and bookmarks, people in your network, links to
documents you frequently share, members of your network.
Activity stream - for monitoring the organization pulse in real
time, sharing what you’re doing, being referred to useful informa-
tion, asking for help, accelerating the flow of news and informa-
tion, and keeping up with change
178 T W

Wikis - for writing collaboratively, eliminating multiple ver-

sions of documents, keeping information out in the open, elimi-
nating unnecessary email, and sharing responsibility for updates
and error correction
Virtual meetings - to make it easy to meet online. Minimum
feature set: shared screen, shared white board, text chat, video
of participants. Bonus features: persistent meeting room (your
office online), avatars.
Blogs - for narrating your work, maintaining your digital rep-
utation, recording accomplishments, documenting expert knowl-
edge, showing people what you’re up to so they can help out
Bookmarks - to facilitate searching for links to information,
discover what sources other people are following, locate experts
Mobile access - Half of America’s workforce sometimes works
away from the office. Smart phones are surpassing PCs for con-
necting to networks for access and participation. Phones post
most Tweets than computers. Google designs its apps for mobile
before porting them to PCs.
Social network - for online conversation, connecting with
people, and all of the above functions.

Conclusion
Learning used to focus on what was in an individual’s head.
The individual took the test, got the degree, or earned the certifi-
cate. The new learning focuses on what it takes to do the job right.
The workplace is an open-book exam. What worker doesn’t have
a cell phone and an Internet connection? Using personal infor-
mation pipelines to get help from colleagues and the Internet to
access the world’s information is encouraged. Besides, it’s prob-
ably the team that must perform, not a single individual. Thirty
years ago, three-quarters of what a worker need to do the job was
stored in her head; now it’s less than 10%.
  23

PARTICIPATION

Methods of managing projects, including learning

projects, range from more formal and structured to
casual and unstructured. As a facilitator, you’ll see
your peeragogy community constantly adjust, as it
seeks an equilibrium between order and chaos, ide-
ally allowing everyone to be involved at their own
pace without losing focus, and in such a manner that
the collective can deliver.

Hey you, stop this train!

For teachers reading this, and wondering how to use peera-

gogy to improve participation in their classrooms, it’s really quite
simple: reframe the educational vision using peeragogical eyes.
Recast the classroom as a community of people who learn to-
gether, the teacher as facilitator, and the curriculum as a starting
point that can be used to organize and trigger community engage-

179
180 P

ment. However, just because it’s simple doesn’t mean it’s easy!
Whatever your day job may be, consider: how well do the var-
ious groups you participate in work together – even when the
members ostensibly share a common purpose? Sometimes things
tick along nicely, and, presumably, sometimes it’s excruciating.
What’s your role in all of this? How do you participate?

Guidelines for participation

• Accept that some people want to watch what is going on
before jumping in. This doesn’t mean you have to keep
them hanging around forever. After a while, you may un-
enroll people who don’t add any value to the community.
In our Peeragogy project, we’ve asked people to explicitly
re-enroll several times. Most do renew; some leave.
• Accept that people may only contribute a little: if this con-
tribution is good it will add value to the whole.
• Understand that you can not impose strict deadlines on vol-
unteers; adjust targets accordingly.
• Let your work be “open” in the sense described in
Wikipedia’s N P  V policy.
• Give roles to participants and define some “energy centers”
who will take the lead on specific items in the project.
• Organize regular face-to-face or online meetings to talk
about progress and what’s needed in upcoming days/weeks.
• Ask participants to be clear about when they will be ready
to deliver their contributions.
• Have clear deadlines, but allow contributions that come in
after the deadline – in general, be flexible.
• Add a newcomer section on your online platform to help
new arrivals get started. Seasoned participants are often
eager to serve as mentors.
P 181

When we think about project management in an organization, we

often relate to well-established tools and processes. For example,
we can use the P M B  K (PM-
BOK) as a standard. For the Project Management Institute (PMI)
and many workers, these standards are seen as the key to project
success. In classical project management, tasks and deadlines are
clearly defined. We will, for example, use P E
 R T (PERT) to analyze and represent tasks. We
often represent the project schedule using a G . Those
are just two of the project management tools that illustrate how
“mainstream” project management rests firmly on an engineer-
ing background. In these very structured projects, each actor is
expected to work exactly as planned and to deliver his part of
the work on time; every individual delay can potentially lead to a
collective delay.
Peeragogy projects may be, naturally, a bit different from
other settings, although we can potentially reuse both formal and
informal methods of organization. For example, unlike a typical
wiki – or classroom – peeragogy projects often expect to break
the 90/9/1 . Keep in mind that some participants may not
contribute all the time – but one really good idea can be a major
contribution. See the anti-pattern “Misunderstanding Power” for
some further reflections on these matters.
How are we doing? If we take our Google+ Community have
contributed to the handbook as the basic population, then as of
January 2014, over 4% have contributed – pretty good. However,
we have yet to reach a contribution profile like 70/20/10.
It’s important to remember that – especially in a volunteer or-
ganization – no one can “make” other people participate, and that
all the lists of things to do are for nought if no one steps in to do
the work. For this reason, if anything is going to happen, what’s
needed are realistic estimates of available work effort. Finally, in
closing this section, we want to emphasize that measures of par-
ticipation offer only a very rough proxy for measures of learning,
although the two are clearly related.
  24

NEW DESIGNS FOR CO-WORKING AND

CO-LEARNING

Author: Joe Corneli

The word “learning” does not adequately capture

what it means to figure out the “for what purpose or
reason” dimension that is essential for a peeragogi-
cal endeavor. Interpersonal exchange and collabora-
tion to develop and pursue common goals goes fur-
ther than “learning” or “working” in their mainstream
definitions. This article will look at examples drawn
from Linux, Wikipedia, and my own work on Planet-
Math, with a few surprises along the way, leading us
to new ways of thinking about how to do co-design
when build systems for peer learning and peer pro-
duction.

Co-working as the flip side of convening

Linus Torvalds: The first mistake is thinking that you
can throw things out there and ask people to help.
That’s not how it works. You make it public, and then
you assume that you’ll have to do all the work, and
ask people to come up with suggestions of what you
should do, not what they should do. Maybe they’ll
start helping eventually, but you should start off with
the assumption that you’re going to be the one main-
taining it and ready to do all the work. The other
thing–and it’s kind of related–that people seem to get
wrong is to think that the code they write is what
matters. No, even if you wrote 100% of the code, and
even if you are the best programmer in the world and

183
184 D  

will never need any help with the project at all, the
thing that really matters is the users of the code. The
code itself is unimportant; the project is only as useful
as people actually find it.

In fact, we can think of contributors as a special class of “user”

with a real time investment in the way the project works. We
typically cannot “Tom Sawyer” ourselves into leisure or ease just
because we manage to work collaboratively, or just because we
have found people with some common interests. And yet, in the
right setting, many people do want to contribute! For example,
on “Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit” (as of 2011) 
  80,000 visitors make 5 or more edits per month.
This is interesting to compare with the   that
(as of 2006) “over 50% of all the edits are done by just .7% of the
users… 24 people…and in fact the most active 2%, which is 1400
people, have done 73.4% of all the edits.” Similar numbers apply
to other peer production communities.
D   185

A little theory

In many natural systems, things are not distributed equally,

and it is not atypical for e.g. 20% of the population to control 80%
of the wealth (or, as we saw, for 2% of the users to do nearly 80% of
the edits). Many, many systems work like this, so maybe there’s
a good reason for it.

Let’s think about it in terms of “coordination” as understood

by the late Elinor Ostrom. She talked about “local solutions for
local problems”. By definition, such geographically-based coordi-
nation requires close proximity. What does “close” mean? If we
think about homogeneous space, it just means that we draw a cir-
cle (or sphere) around where we are, and the radius of this circle
(resp. sphere) is small.

An interesting   is that as the dimension

grows, the volume of the sphere gets “thinner”, so the radius
must increase to capture the same d-dimensional volume when
d grows! In other words, the more different factors impact on
a given issue, the less likely there are to be small scale, self-
contained, “local problems” or “local solutions” in the first place.

As a network or service provider grows (like a MOOC as op-

posed to a Collaborative Exploration, for example), they typically
build many weak ties, with a few strong ties that hold it all to-
gether. Google is happy to serve everyone’s web requests – but
they can’t have just anyone walking in off the street and connect-
ing devices their network in Mountain View.

By the way, the 2006 article on Wikipedia quoted above was

written by Aaron Swartz (“over 50% of all the edits are done by…
24 people”, etc.), who achieved considerable  for doing
something similar with MIT’s network. His is a particularly sad
case of one person acting alone and drawing significant ire from
institutions and governments; we could contrast Aaron Swartz,
the individual, with the peer-to-peer infrastructures like the ones
that run PirateBay, which have proved much harder to stop.
186 D  

Co-working: what is an institution?

As idealists, we would love to be able to create systems that are
both powerful and humane. Some may reflect with a type of sen-
timental fondness on completely mythical economic systems in
which a “dedicated individual could rise to the top through dint of
effort.” Well-articulated systems like this do exist, however: nat-
ural languages, for example, are so expressive and adaptive that
most sentences have never been said before. A well-articulated
system lends itself to “local solutions to local problems” – but in
the linguistics case, this is only because all words are not created
equal.

Dr Seuss: My brothers read a little bit. Little words

like ‘I’ and ‘It.’ My father can read big words, too,
Like CONSTANTINOPLE and TIMBUKTU.

We could go on here to talk about Coase’s theory of the firm,

and Benkler’s theory of “C’ P”. We might continue
 from Aaron Swartz. But we will not get so deeply into
that here: you can explore it on your own! For now, it is enough
to say that an institution is a bit like a language. This will help us
a lot in the next section.

Designing a platform for peer learning

PM is a virtual community which aims to
help make mathematical knowledge more accessible.

In my PhD thesis [1], I talk about my work to turn this long-

running website, which since 2001 had focused on building a
mathematics encyclopedia, into a peer produced peer learning en-
vironment. The picture below shows the basic idea. We would
retain all of the old activities related to authoring, reviewing, and
discussing encyclopedia articles, but we would also add a bunch
of new features having to do with mathmatical problem solving,
an activity that is suitable for mathematical beginners.
D   187

Old objects New objects

article
profile

article problem

goal

comment problem

article
comment
solution

review
correction

My first translation of that sketch into a basic interaction de-

sign was as follows. People can continue to add articles to Plan-
etMath’s encyclopedia: they can connect one article to another
either by making one article the “parent” of another (A ← A ), or,
more typically, via an inline link, ℓ. Like in the old system, users
can discuss any object (X ← T ), but now there is more structure:
problems can be connected to articles (A ← P ) and solutions can
be connected to problems (P ← S ). Instead of explicitly modeling
“goals,” the idea I came up with was that problems and articles
could be organized into “collections,” the same way that videos are
organized into playlists on YouTube, and that the user would get
encouraging feedback as they work their way through the prob-
lems in a given collection. I described a few other types of ob-
jects and interactions that were not present in the above sketch,
like questions and answers, groups, and the ability to change the
“type” of certain contributed objects. This table summarizes the
overall design.
Context Feedback Quality Structure Heuristic
A←P←S
A←A X←T X←Q L ← A, P G↩U
ℓ S←R A←C M←A S↩H
A←
ÐA Q, T ⇀ C, W, P
Q←A
G group
A article T post Q question P problem U user
ℓ link S solution C correction L collection W request
X object R review M classific. H heuristic
188 D  

The next step was to do a complete overhaul of PlanetMath’s

software system, to build something that could actually do all
of that. After deploying the system and doing some studies
with PlanetMath users (described in the handbook section on Re-
searching Peeragogy), I realized the design summarized above
was not complete. Note that this is very much along the lines
of what Linus Torvalds said above: I did the design, and me and a
small group of collaborators with their own vested interests built
the system, then we put it out there to get more ideas from users.
Here the updated table, coming out of the co-design process.
Context Feedback Quality Structure Heuristic
A←A X←Q A←P←J←S G↩U
X←T A←C
ℓ S←R L ← A, P S↩H
A←
ÐA
↪ X → X′ M←A Q, T ⇀ C, W, P
X X X → X♯
X ⊧ X⋆ Q←A G ↪E
G group
A article T post Q question P problem U user
ℓ link S solution C correction L collection W request
X object R review M classific. H heuristic
′ fork
X project ♯ update J conjecture E ephemera
⋆ outcome

The main thing that was missing from the earlier design was the
idea of a project. From interviewing users, it became clear to me
that it would be helpful to think of every object as being part of at
least one project: everything should have someone looking after
it! Importantly, getting back to the very beginning of this article,
each project can define its own purpose for existing. Here’s how
I put it in my thesis:

Actions and artifacts are embedded with projects, which

can be modeled in terms of informal user experience and
formal system features. Project updates can be modeled
with a language of fundamental actions. Projects them-
selves model their outcomes, and are made “viable” by
features that connect to the motivations and ambitions
of potential participants.

The key point to make about these tables is that they describe a
“grammar” for the kinds of things that can be done on Planet-
Math. In the updated grammar, projects are like sentences. The
D   189

language can be extended further, and I hope this will happen in

further study. In particular, we need to understand more about
how the “sub-language” of project updates (which connects to our
Roadmap pattern).

Another way to think about things

The five categories I used above (Context, Engagement, Qual-
ity, Structure, and Heuristic) come from reflecting on the 5 par-
agogy principles, and comparing them with the 5  
    that were developed by Mar-
tin Nowak [2]. The analogies between these two sets of five cat-
egories are not perfect, and this exercise was meant to inspire,
rather than to constrain, thoughts on the learning/platform de-
sign. Nowak’s formalism is meant to be general enough to de-
scribe many different kinds of collaboration: I’ll review the key
points below, and show how they inspired my thinking about
PlanetMath. The broader reason why Nowak’s work is so essen-
tial is that we already have theories of local collaboration (like
Ostrom’s, mentioned above): his five rules can act as “glue” that
bring different local entities together. I hope you can use these
ideas in your own design projects!

In a “kin selection” regime, we cooperate with

whomever (or whatever) is “related”.

On PlanetMath, the most important senses of “relatedness” apply

to elements of the subject domain: encyclopedia pages are linked
together if the topics relate.

In a “direct reciprocity” regime, we help those who help

us.

One of the key legacy features of PlanetMath is that every object

in the system is “discussable.” This is the most easily graspable
sort of peer interaction, direct feedback, starting a conversation.
190 D  

In an “indirect reciprocity” regime, we are building

something that may be useful later on – like a good
reputation.

An important legacy feature of PlanetMath is that, unlike

Wikipedia, articles are not generally open to the public to edit:
high-quality resources “emerge” from the mediated engagement
of individuals in a peer review process.

In a “spatial selection” regime, we are again defining

an “inside” and “outside.”

With the new system, we see that “an article without an attached
problem” is not as practical as an article that has an attached prob-
lem; similarly, “a problem without a solution” is lacking some-
thing. This helps people see what’s missing, and what remains to
be done.

In a “group selection” regime, we are building “sets”

of activities and patterns (milestones, roles) which can
then act as selectors for behavior.

Co-working requires people to be able to join groups, and it re-

quires the groups to be able to structure their workflow. In some
sense this is similar to an individual’s work being structured by
the use of heuristics. A person’s choice to join this group instead
of that one, is a basic social heuristic.

The discussion continues: Reliving the history of

mathematics as a peeragogical game?
These notes have shown one approach to the design of spaces
for learning and knowledge building. Although the article has
focused on mathematics learning, similar reflections would ap-
ply to designing other sorts of learning spaces, for instance, to
the continued development of the Peeragogy project itself! – and
perhaps to the development of a new kind of institutions.
D   191

Doug Breitbart: It occurred to me that you could add

a learning dimension to the site that sets up the his-
tory of math as a series of problems, proofs and the-
orems that, although already solved, could be re-cast
as if not yet solved, and framed as current challenges
which visitors could take on (clearly with links to
the actual solutions, and deconstruction of how they
were arrived at, when the visitor decides to throw in
the towel).

Reference
1. Corneli, J. (2014). P P P L: A
M C S. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis. The
Open University.

2. Nowak, M. (2006). F      

, Science.
  25

A CO-WORKING STORY

The board of a housing association needs to set a strategy that

takes account of major changes in legislation, the UK benefits sys-
tem and the availability of long term construction loans. Julian,
eager to make use of his new-found peeragogical insights sug-
gests an approach where individuals research specific factors and
the team work together to draw out themes and strategic options.
As a start he proposes that each board member researches an area
of specific knowledge or interest.
Jim, the Chairman, identifies questions he wants to ask the
Chairs of other Housing Associations. Pamela (a lawyer) agrees
to do an analysis of the relevant legislation. Clare, the CEO, plans
out a series of meetings with the local councils in the boroughs of
interest to understand their reactions to the changes from central
government. Jenny, the operations director, starts modelling the
impact on occupancy from new benefits rules. Colin, the devel-
opment director, re-purposes existing work on options for devel-
opment sites to reflect different housing mixes on each site. Mal-
colm, the finance director, prepares a briefing on the new treasury
landscape and the changing positions of major lenders.
Each member of the board documents their research in a pri-
vate wiki. Julian facilitates some synchronous and asynchronous
discussion to draw out themes in each area and map across the
areas of interest. Malcolm, the FD, adapts his financial models
to take different options as parameters. Clare refines the themes
into a set of strategic options for the association, with associated
financial modelling provided by Malcolm. Individual board mem-
bers explore the options asynchronously before convening for an
all-day meeting to confirm the strategy.

193
Part VIII

Assessment
  26

INTRODUCTION TO PEERAGOGICAL
ASSESSMENT

Authors: Joe Corneli and David Preston

This article is about both assessment in peer learning

and an exercise in assessment, as we put our strategy
for assessment into practice by evaluating the Peera-
gogy Handbook itself.

Adapting strategies for learning assessment to the

peer-learning context
In “E G: A T  L  A
,” Barbara E. Walvoord and Virginia Johnson Anderson have
outlined an approach to grading. They address three questions:

1. Who needs to know, and why?

2. Which data are collected?
3. How does the assessment body analyze data and present
findings?

The authors suggest that institutions, departments, and assess-

ment committees should begin with these simple questions and
work from them towards anything more complex. These simple
questions provide a way to understand - and assess - any strategy
for assessment! For example, consider “formative assessment” (in
other words, keeping track of how things are going). In this con-
text, the answers to the questions above would be:

1. Teachers need to know about the way students are thinking

about their work, so they can deliver better teaching.

197
198 P A

2. Teachers gather a lot of these details on learning activities

by “listening over the shoulders” of students.
3. Teachers apply analysis techniques that come from their
training or experience – and they do not necessarily present
their assessments to students directly, but rather, feed it
back in the form of improved teaching.

This is very much a “teacher knows best” model! In order to

do something like formative assessment among peers, we would
have to make quite a few adjustments.

1. At least some of the project participants would have to

know how other participants are thinking about their work
as well as analyzing their own progress. We are then able
to “deliver better teaching” and work together to problem-
solve when difficulties arise.
2. It may be most convenient for each participant to take on
a share of the work (e.g. by maintaining a “learning jour-
nal” which might be shared with other participants). This
imposes a certain overhead, but as we remarked elsewhere,
“meta-learning is a font of knowledge!” Outside of persis-
tent self-reflection, details about others’ learning can some-
times be abstracted from their contributions to the project
(“learning analytics” is a whole topic unto itsel).
3. If a participant in a “learning project” is bored, frustrated,
feeling closed-minded, or for whatever other reason “not
learning,” then there is definitely a question. But for whom?
For the person who isn’t learning? For the collective as a
whole? We may not have to ponder this conundrum for
long: if we go back to the idea that “learning is adaptation,”
someone who is not learning in a given context will likely
leave and find another context where they can learn more.

This is but one example of an assessment strategy: in addition

to “formative assessment”, “diagnostic” and “summative” strate-
gies are also quite popular in mainstream education. The main
P A 199

purpose of this section has been to show that when the familiar
roles from formal education devolve “to the people,” the way as-
sessment looks can change a lot. In the following section, we offer
and begin to implement an assessment strategy for evaluating the
peeragogy project as a whole.

Case study in peeragogical evaluation: the

Peeragogy project itself
We can evaluate this project partly in terms of its main “de-
liverable,” the Peeragogy Handbook (which you are now reading).
In particular, we can ask: Is this handbook useful for its intended
audience? If so, in what ways? If not, how can we adapt? The
“intended audience” could potentially include anyone who is par-
ticipating in a peer learning project, or who is thinking about
starting one. We can also evaluate the learning experience that
the co-creators of this handbook have had. Has working on this
book been a useful experience for those involved? These are two
very different questions, with two different targets for analysis –
though the book’s co-creators are also part of the “intended au-
dience”. Indeed, we might start by asking “how has working on
this book been useful for us?”

A methodological interlude: “Follow the money”

The metrics for learning in corporations are business metrics
based on financial data. Managers want to know: ”Has the learn-
ing experience enhanced the workers’ productivity? When peo-
ple ask about the ROI of informal learning, ask them how they
measure the ROI of formal learning. Test scores, grades, self-
evaluations, attendance, and certifications prove nothing. The
ROI of any form of learning is the value of changes in behavior
divided by the cost of inducing the change. Like the tree falling
over in the forest with no one to hear it, if there’s no change in
behavior over the long haul, no learning took place. ROI is in
the mind of the beholder, in this case, the sponsor of the learn-
ing who is going to decide whether or not to continue investing.
200 P A

Because the figure involves judgment, it’s never going to be accu-

rate to the first decimal place. Fortunately, it doesn’t have to be.
Ballpark numbers are solid enough for making decisions.
The process begins before the investment is made. What de-
gree of change will the sponsor accept as worthy of reinvestment?
How are we going to measure that? What’s an adequate level of
change? What’s so low we’ll have to adopt a different approach?
How much of the change can we attribute to learning? You need
to gain agreement on these things beforehand. Monday morning
quarterbacking is not credible. It’s counterproductive to assess
learning immediately after it occurs. You can see if people are en-
gaged or if they’re complaining about getting lost, but you can-
not assess what sticks until the forgetting curve has ravaged the
learners’ memories for a few months.
Interest also doesn’t guarantee results in learning, though it
helps. Without reinforcement, people forget most of what they
learn in short order. It’s beguiling to try to correlate the impact
of learning with existing financial metrics like increased revenues
or better customer service scores. Done on its own, this approach
rarely works because learning is but one of many factors that in-
fluence results, even in the business world. Was today’s success
due to learning or the ad campaign or weak competition or the
sales contest or something else?
The best way to assess how people learn is to ask them. How
did you figure out how to do this? Who did you learn this from?
How did that change your behavior? How can we make it bet-
ter? How will you? Self-evaluation through reflective practice
can build both metacognition and self-efficacy in individuals and
groups.
Too time consuming? Not if you interview a representative
sample. For example, interviewing less than 100 people out of
2000 yields an answer within 10% nineteen times out of twenty,
a higher confidence level than most estimates in business. Inter-
viewing 150 people will give you the right estimate 99% of the
time.
P A 201

Roadmaps in Peer Learning

We have identified several

basic and more elaborated
patterns that describe “the
Peeragogy effect”. These have
shaped the way we think
about things since. We think
the central pattern is the
Roadmap, which can apply
at the individual level, as a
personal learning plan, or
at a project level. As we’ve
indicated, sometimes peo-
ple simply plan to see what
happens: alternative versions
of the Roadmap might be a
compass, or even the ocean
chart from the Hunting of the
Snark. The roadmap may just
be a North Star – or it may
include detailed reasons “why,” further exposition about the goal,
indicators of progress, a section for future work, and so forth.
Our initial roadmap for the project was the preliminaly outline
of the handbook; as the handbook approached completion at
the “2.0” level, we spun off additional goals into a new roadmap
for a Peeragogy Accelerator. Additional patterns flesh out the
project’s properties in an open “agora” of possibilities. Unlike
the ocean, our map retains traces of where we’ve been, and what
we’ve learned. In an effort to document these ”paths in the grass,”
we prepared a short survey for Peeragogy project participants.
We asked people how they had participated (e.g., by signing up
for access to the Social Media Classroom and mailing list, joining
the Google+ Community, authoring articles, etc.) and what goals
or interests motivated their participation. We asked them to
describe the Peeragogy project itself in terms of its aims and
to evaluate its progress over the first year of its existence. As
202 P A

another measure of “investment” in the project, we asked, with

no strings attached, whether the respondent would consider
donating to the Peeragogy project. This survey was circulated to
223 members of the Peeragogy Google+ community, as well as
to the currently active members of the Peeragogy mailing list.
The responses outlining the project’s purpose ranged from the
general: “How to make sense of learning in our complex times” -
to much more specific:

Anonymous Survey Respondent 1: Push education

further, providing a toolbox and [techniques] to self-
learners. In the peeragogy.org introduction page we
assume that self-learners are self-motivated, that may
be right but the Handbook can also help them to stay
motivated, to motivate others and to face obstacles
that may erode motivation.

Considering motivation as a key factor, it is interesting to ob-

serve how various understandings of the project’s aims and its
flaws intersected with personal motivations. For example, one
respondent (who had only participated by joining the Google+
community) was: “[Seeking] [i]nformation on how to create and
engage communities of interest with a shared aim of learning.”
More active participants justified their participation in terms of
what they get out of taking an active role, for instance:

Anonymous Survey Respondent 2: “Contributing to

the project allows me to co-learn, share and co-write
ideas with a colourful mix of great minds. Those ideas
can be related to many fields, from communication, to
technology, to psychology, to sociology, and more.”

The most active participants justified their participation in terms

of beliefs or a sense of mission:

Anonymous Survey Respondent 3: “Currently we

are witnessing many efforts to incorporate technol-
ogy as an important tool for the learning process.
P A 203

However, most of the initiatives are reduced to the

technical aspect (apps, tools, social networks) with-
out any theoretical or epistemological framework.
Peeragogy is rooted in many theories of cooperation
and leads to a deeper level of understanding about the
role of technology in the learning process. I am con-
vinced of the social nature of learning, so I participate
in the project to learn and find new strategies to learn
better with my students.”

Or again:

Anonymous Survey Respondent 4: “I wanted to un-

derstand how”peer production” really works. Could
we create a well-articulated system that helps people
interested in peer production get their own goals ac-
complished, and that itself grows and learns? Peer
production seems linked to learning and sharing - so
I wanted to understand how that works.”

They also expressed criticism of the project, implying that they

may feel rather powerless to make the changes that would correct
course:

Anonymous Survey Respondent 5: “Sometimes I

wonder whether the project is not too much ‘by edu-
cation specialists for education specialists.’ I have the
feeling peer learning is happening anyway, and that
teens are often amazingly good at it. Do they need
‘learning experts’ or ‘books by learning experts’ at
all? Maybe they are the experts. Or at least, quite a
few of them are.”

Another respondent was more blunt:

Anonymous Survey Respondent 6: “What problems

do you feel we are aiming to solve in the Peeragogy
project? We seem to not be sure. How much progress
204 P A

did we make in the first year? Some… got stuck in

theory.”

But, again, it is not entirely clear how the project provides clear
pathways for contributors to turn their frustrations into changed
behavior or results. Additionally we need to be entirely clear that
we are indeed paving new ground with our work. If there are
proven peer learning methods out there we have not examined
and included in our efforts, we need to find and address them.
Peeragogy is not about reinventing the wheel. It is also not en-
tirely clear whether excited new peers will find pathways to turn
their excitement into shared products or process. For example,
one respondent (who had only joined the Google+ community)
had not yet introduced current, fascinating projects publicly:

Anonymous Survey Respondent 7: “I joined the

Google+ community because I am interested in devel-
oping peer to peer environments for my students to
learn in. We are moving towards a community-based,
place-based program where we partner with commu-
nity orgs like our history museum for microhistory
work, our local watershed community and farmer’s
markets for local environmental and food issues, etc.
I would love for those local efforts working with adult
mentors to combine with a peer network of other HS
students in some kind of cMOOC or social media net-
work.”

Responses such as this highlight our need to make ourselves avail-

able to hear about exciting new projects from interested peers,
simultaneously giving them easier avenues to share. Our work
on developing a peeragogy accelerator in the next section is an
attempt to address this situation.

Summary
We can reflect back on how this feedback bears on the main
sections of this book with a few more selected quotes. These mo-
P A 205

tivate further refinement to our strategies for working on this

project, and help build a constructively-critical jumping off point
for future projects that put peeragogy into action.

Cooperate How can we build strong collaboration? “A team is

not a group of people who work together. A team is not a group
of people who work together. A team is a group of people who
trust each other.”

Convene How can we build a more practical focus? “The insight

that the project will thrive if people are working hard on their in-
dividual problems and sharing feedback on the process seems like
the key thing going forward. This feels valuable and important.”

Organize How connect with newcomers and oldcomers? “I just

came on board a month ago. I am designing a self-organizing
learning environment (SOLE) or PLE/PLN that I hope will help
enable communities of life long learners to practice digital litera-
cies.”

Assess How can we be effective and relevant? “I am game to also

explore ways attach peeragogy to spaces where funding can flow
based on real need in communities.”

Conclusion
We can estimate individual learning by examining the real
problems solved by the individual. It makes sense to assess the
way groups solve problems in a similar way. Solving real prob-
lems often happens very slowly, with lots of practice along the
way. We’ve learned a lot about peer learning in this project, and
the assessment above gives a serious look at what we’ve accom-
plished, and at how much is left.
  27

RESEARCHING PEERAGOGY

Author: Joe Corneli

If you have a research bent, by this point, you may be asking
yourself questions like these: How can we understand peer learn-
ing better? How can we do research “the peeragogical way”? How
do we combine research and peer learning?You may also be asking
more technical methodological and instrumentation-level ques-
tions: Do we have a good way to measure learning? Which activi-
ties and interventions have the biggest payof?
This chapter summarizes qualitative research I did on Planet-
Math.org, using the pattern catalog, as part of my work for my
PhD. In the course of the study, I developed 3 new patterns.
The first point to make is that although this research was in-
formal, it is nevertheless (at least in my view) highly rigorous.
This is because the pattern catalog is a relatively stable, socially
agreed upon objct, though it is not fixed for all time. We can use
it to help identify “known” patterns, but we can also extend it
with new patterns – assuming that we can make an argument to
explain why the new patterns are needed. The notion of pattern-
finding as a process related to, but distinct from abstraction is
described by Richard Gabriel, who emphasizes that the “patterns
and the social process for applying them are designed to produce
organic order through piecemeal growth” ([1], p. 31).
We can use the rigorous-but-informal notion of an expand-
ing pattern catalog to help address the high-level questions about
peeragogical research mentioned above. The three new patterns I
present here are: Frontend and Backend, Spanning Set, and Min-
imum Viable Project. These patterns are both an “outcome” of
research in a real peer learning context – and also a reflection
on peeragogical research methods. Like the other peeragogy pat-
terns, they are tools you can use in your own work.

207
208 R P

Map of a virtual campus

Study design
The study was based on interviews with users of a new soft-
ware system that we deployed on PlanetMath.org. In the inter-
views, we covered a wide range issues, ranging from basic issues
of usability all the way to “deep” issues about how people think
about mathematics. In this project, I was interested not only in
how people collaborate to solve mathematical problems, but how
they think about “system level” issues. The design I had in mind
is depicted in the figures below. The key idea is that patterns
emerge as “paths in the grass”, or “desire lines”. The idea that
learning design has emergent features is not itself new; see e.g.
[2]. What’s new here is a characterization of the key patterns for
doing emergent design in a peer learning context.

Initial thematic analysis

Before describing the new patterns, I will briefly summarize
the themes I identified in the interviews. This can serve as an
overview of the current features and shortcomings of PlanetMath
system for people who are not familiar with it.
R P 209

Peeragogy patterns as loci for “paths in the grass”

• “Necessary but not sufficient”. Users identified a range of

essential features, like a critical mass of other users to talk
to.

• “Nice to have”. It was also easy to identify a bunch of cool

new “dream” features.

• Challenges with writing mathematics. PlanetMath uses

LATEX, which isn’t entirely easy to learn (however, we could
adapt the software to help new users get started).

• Progressive problem solving. The new PlanetMath con-

tains problems and solutions, but no easy way to talk about
conjectures. Users would like a better way to share and dis-
cuss work-in-progress.

• Personal history, social constructivism. Better features for

tracking and, where appropriate, sharing, personal history
would help users make sense of what’s happening in the
site.

• Regulating learning in a social/mediated context. Differ-

ent users would look for different things to keep them on
210 R P

track (e.g. expert guidance, or a due “sense of urgency” in

feedback from peers).

• Comparison with roles in other contexts. Many users ex-

pect a “service delivery” style that is not entirely consis-
tent with the “open” production model used in a free/open,
volunteer-driven project. We need to work more on respon-
siveness in every aspect of the project (keeping in mind that
most participants are volunteers).

• Concreteness as a criterion of quality. “Knowing what you

can do,” both with the software and with the content, is im-
portant. On the content level, pictures help.

• Personalization and localization. The system has a prac-

tically unlimited potential for personalization, although
many basic personalized interaction modes have not been
built yet.

Pattern analysis
At the next level of analysis, the themes extracted above were
further analysed in relationship to the peeragogy pattern catalog.

Frontend and Backend

Although mathematics is a relatively formal domain, many of
the motivations for using PlanetMath map onto what Zimmerman
and Campillo call informal problem solving [3]. Informal prob-
lems are are personally defined and possess openended boundary
conditions, i.e., are situated within an “open world.” I like think-
ing about this in terms of the way a car works. You can model the
steering and drive system with classical mechanics. But you ul-
timately need to model the engine with statistical mechanics and
chemistry. You get in a car and start driving and usually it works
more or less the way you’d expect. This is how it works with other
“formal” systems. You queue here, sign there, pay your fee, and
it’s all done. With informal systems, it’s messier. Of course, the
R P 211

car’s engine has a detailed diagram, and for a mechanic, it’s just
another “formal” system. And, yes, the streets at rush hour can
get very messy. It’s all relative. The broader point is that where
ever it appears, “formal” is straightforward. In order to design a
collaborative system, you want to bring in enough messiness to
let new and unexpected features emerge – support for serendip-
ity – but you also need to be aware of the user’s experience. As
another analogy, imagine a butcher shop. You want the user to
be able to take away nice little packages of meat, you don’t want
them cutting up whole cows. Leave that to the pros. The idea
of Frontend and Backend is related to the pattern of the “New-
comer” pattern, since typically one will not expect the user of a
system to know how to, or to be motivated to, work with back-
end features of a system until they have mastered at least some of
the frontend features. It would be rare to find an auto mechanic
who did not know how to drive. David Cavallo wrote about an
“engine culture” in rural Thailand, in which structurally open sys-
tems made some of the “backend” features of internal combustion
engines a part of daily life [4]. In PlanetMath, we have an “open
engine”, but not necessarily an open engine culture (users expect
a level of service provision). The Frontend and Backend pattern
clearly lends itself to standard service provision, but it can also
be part of paragogical activity. For example, sophisticated and
committed users of the PlanetMath website could focus energy
on supporting individual newcomers, by helping them develop a
high-quality sub-site on their topic of interest. Such effort would
simultaneously inform the development of backend features, and
help raise the profile of the site as a whole. The pattern is in this
way associated with Focusing on a Specific Project and with the
Divide pattern.

Spanning Set
You may be able to get what you need without digging - but if
you do need to dig, it would be very good to get some indication
about which direction to dig in. At the content level, this might
be achieved by using high-level “topic articles” as a map to the
212 R P

content. But there is another broader interpretation of this pat-

tern that related to but distinct from Frontend and Backend - we
call this the Spanning Set. In general, the Spanning Set might be
made up of people, or media objects. In a standard course model,
there is one central node, the teacher, who is responsible for all
teaching and course communication. In large online courses, this
model can be is scaled up:

Anonymous study participant: [E]veryone’s allo-

cated a course tutor, who might take on just a half-
dozen students - so, they’re not the overall person in
charge of the course, by any means.

Another version is the classical master/apprentice system, in

which every apprentice is supervised by a certified master. In
the typical online Q&A context, these roles are made distributed,
and are better modeled by power laws than by formal gradations.
A “spanning set” of peer tutors could help shift the exponent at-
tached to the power law in massive courses. We can imagine a
given discussion group of 100 persons that is divided according to
the so-called 90/9/1 , so that 90 lurk, 9 contribute a little, and 1
creates the content. This is what one might observe, for example,
in a classroom with a lecture format. We could potentially shift
the system by breaking the group up, so that each of the 9 contrib-
utors leads a small group of 10 persons, at which point, chances
are good that some of the former lurkers would be converted into
contributors. At a more semantic level, we can advance the five
paragogical principles and their various analogues as a candidate
description of the fundamental categories and relationships rele-
vant to peer learning. In practice, principles can only provide the
most visible “frontend”, and an actual spanning set is comprised of
emergent patterns. In PlanetMath, this would arise from combin-
ing several different features, like a “start menu” that shows what
can be done with the site, a Heartbeat built of recurring meetings,
and topic-level guides to content. (Note: as a project with an en-
cyclopedic component, PlanetMath itself can be used to span and
organize a significantly larger body of existing material.)
R P 213

Minimum Viable Project

The Minimum Viable Product approach to software develop-
ment is about putting something out there to see if the customer
bites [5]. Another approach, related to the pattern we just dis-
cussed, is to make it clear what people can do with what’s there
and see if they engage. We might call this the Minimum Vi-
able Project, an adjunct to the “Roadmap” pattern, and yet an-
other interpretation of Focusing on a Specific Project. One way
to strengthen the PlanetMath project as a whole would be to focus
on support for individual projects. The front page of the website
could be redesigned so that the top-level view of the site is project
focused. Thus, instead of collecting all of the posts from across
the site - or even all of the threads from across the site - the front
page could collect succinct summary information on recently ac-
tive projects, and list the number of active posts in each, after
the model of Slashdot stories or StackExchange questions. For
instance, each Mathematics Subject Classification could be des-
ignated as a “sub-project”, but there could be many other cross-
cutting or smaller-scale projects.

Summary
This chapter has used the approach suggested by Figure 2 to
expand the peeragogy pattern language. It shows that the peera-
gogy pattern language provides a “meta-model” that can be used
to develop emergent order relative to given boundary conditions.
As new structure forms, this becomes part of the boundary con-
ditions for future iterations. This method is a suitable form for a
theory of peer learning and peer production in project-based and
cross-project collaborations - a tool for conviviality in the sense
of Ivan Illich. In other words, we’re all in the same boat. The
things that peer learners need in order to learn stuff in a peer
produced setting are exactly the same things that designers and
system builders need, too. And one concrete way to assess our
collective learning is in terms of the growth and refinement of
our pattern catalog.
214 R P

Frontend and Backend

Principles and features
Minimum Viable Project
A Specific Project, Roadmap, Heartbeat, Divide, Use or Make
Spanning Set
Paths in the grass

Peeragogical emergent design: a tool for conviviality

References
1. Gabriel, R. (1996). Patterns of Software. Oxford University
Press New York.

2. Luckin, R. (2010). Re-designing learning contexts:

technology-rich, learner-centred ecologies. Routledge.

3. Zimmerman, B. J. & Campillo, M. (2003). Motivating self-

regulated problem solvers. In J. Davidson & R. Sternberg
(Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 233-262).
Cambridge University Press New York, NY.

4. Cavallo, D. P. (2000). Technological Fluency and the Art of

Motorcycle Maintenance: Emergent design of learning en-
vironments (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology).

5. Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup: How today’s en-

trepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically
successful businesses. Crown Pub.
 Part IX

Technologies, Services, and

Platforms
  28

INTRODUCTION TO TECHNOLOGIES FOR

PEERAGOGY

Author: Gigi Johnson

It is tempting to bring a list of technologies out as a glorious

cookbook. We need a 1/2 cup of group writing tools, 2 tsp. of
social network elements, a thick slice of social bookmarking, and
some sugar, then put it in the oven for 1 hour for 350 degrees.
We have created a broad features/functions list for Handbook
readers to reflect upon and consider. The joy of this list is that you
can consider alternatives for the way you communicate and work
while you are planning the project, or can add in new elements
to solve communications gaps or create new tools.
However, too many tools spoil the broth. In the writing of
this Handbook, we found that out firsthand. We spent a lot of
marvelous energy exploring different tools to collaborate, curate
information, do research, tag resources, and adjudicate among all
of our points of view. In looking at groups working with the var-
ious MOOCs, as another example, different groups of students
often camp in different social media technologies to work.
In large courses, students often have to be pushed into vari-
ous social media tools to “co-create” with great protest and lots
of inertia. And finally, co-learning groups often come from very
different backgrounds, ages, and stages of life, with very different
tools embedded in their current lives. Do we have time for three
more tools in our busy days? Do more tools help – or do they
interfere with our work?
In this section, we’ll share with you a few issues:

• What technologies are most useful in peer learning? What

do we use them for? What features or functions help our
co-learning process?

217
218 P T

• How do we decide (a) as a group and (b) for the group on

what tools we can use? Do we decide upfront, or grow as
we go?

• How do we coach and scaffold each other on use of tools?

• How much do the tool choices impact the actual outcome

of our learning project?

• What are the different roles that co-learners can take

in co-teaching and co-coaching the technology affor-
dances/assumptions in the project to make others’ lives eas-
ier?

Keep in mind – your needs for tools, plus how the way the group
uses them, will change as the co-learning project moves along.
Technologies themselves tend to change rapidly. Are you willing
to change tools during the project as your needs and users change,
or do you plan to use a given tool set from the beginning to the
end of your project?

Features and Considerations

We will begin below with a discussions of “features” and initial
considerations, and then move to a broader “Choose Your Own
Adventure”-style matrix of features leading to a wide variety of
collaboration-based technology tools online.

Technologies and Features

As we will share in the extensive list below, there are abundant
tools now available – both for free and for pay – to bring great
features to our co-learning endeavors. It is tempting to grab a
group of fancy tools and bring the group into a fairly complex
tool environment to find the perfect combination of resources.
The challenge: adult learners seek both comfort and context in
our lives [1], [2]. In choosing tool “brands”, we can ignore the
features themselves and what we need as parts of the puzzle for
P T 219

learning. We also can have anxiety about our self-beliefs around

computers and technology, which in turn can limit our abilities
[3].
Before we get to brands and choices, it helps to ask a few ques-
tions about the learning goals and environments:

• What do we need as features, and at what stage of the learn-

ing process?

• What are we already comfortable with, individually and as

a group?

• Do we want to stay with comfortable existing tools, or do

we want to stretch, or both?

• What types of learners do we have in this group? Techno-

logically advanced? Comfortable with basics?

• Do we want to invest the time to bring the whole group up

to speed on tools? Do all the group members agree on this?
Do we want to risk alienating members by making them
invest time in new resources?

• We know that our use will migrate and adapt. Do we want

to plan for adaptation? Observe it? Learn from it? Make
that change intentional as we go?

Researchers over the years have heavily examined these ques-

tions of human, technology, and task fit in many arenas. H
C I researchers have looked at “fit” and
“adaptive behavior,” as well as how the tools can affect how
the problem is presented by Te’eni [4]. Creativity support tools
[5] have a whole line of design research, as has the field of
CS C W S (CSCW).
For co-learners and designers interested in the abundance in this
space, we’ve added some additional links below. We here will
make this a bit easier. For your co-learning environment, you
may want to do one or two exercises in your decision planning:
220 P T

What features do you need? Do you need collaboration?

Graphic models? Places to work at the same time (synchronous)?
Between meetings (asynchronous)? What are the group mem-
bers already using as their personal learning platforms? It also
makes sense to do an inventory about what the group already has
as their learning platforms. I’m doing that with another learn-
ing group right now. People are much more comfortable – as we
also have found in our co-creation of this Handbook – creating
and co-learning in tools with which they already are comfortable.
Members can be co-teachers to each other – as we have have – in
new platforms. What type of tools, based on the features that we
need, shall we start out with? Resnick at al. [6] looked at tools
having:

• Low thresholds (easy to get people started)

• Wide walls (able to bring in lots of different situations and
uses) and
• High ceilings (able to do complex tasks as the users and uses
adapt and grow).

What are important features needed for co-creation and work-

ing together? In other pages above, we talk abundantly about
roles and co-learning challenges. These issues also are not new;
Dourish & Bellottii [7] for example, shared long-standing issues
in computer-supportive collaborative work online about how we
are aware of the information from others, passive vs. active gen-
eration of information about collaborators, etc. These challenges
used to be “solved” by software designers in individual tools. Now
that tools are open, abundant, and diverse, groups embrace these
same challenges when choosing between online resources for co-
learning.

Useful Uses and fancy Features of Technological Tools

From here, we will help you think about what might be pos-
sible, linking to features and solution ideas.
P T 221

We start with ways to ask the key questions: What do you

want to do and why? We will start with features organized
around several different axes:

1. Time/Place,

2. Stages of Activities and Tasks,

3. Skill Building/Bloom’s Taxonomy,

4. Use Cases, and

5. Learning Functions.

Each will link to pages that will prompt you with features, func-
tionality, and technology tool ideas.

Time/Place
We can further break down tools into whether they create or
distribute, or whether we can work simultaneously (synchronous)
or at our own times (ascynchronous). To make elements of time
and place more visual, Baecker [8] created a CSCW Matrix, bring-
ing together time and place functions and needs. Some tools
are synchronous, such as Google+ Hangouts, Blackboard Col-
laborate, and Adobe Connect, while others let us work asyn-
chronously, such as wikis, forums, and Google Docs. We seem
to be considering here mostly tools good for group work, but not
for solo, while many others are much easier solo or in smaller
groups.

Same Time Different Time

(Synchronous) (Ascynronous)
Face-to-Face: Display- Ongoing Tasks: Group-
Same Place focused (e.g., Smart- ware, project manage-
(Colocated) boards) ment tools
Remote Interaction: Communication & Coor-
Different Place Videoconference, IM, dination: Email, bulletin
(Remote) Chat, Virtual Worlds boards, Wikis, blog, work-
flow tools
222 P T

Stages of Activities and Tasks

Ben Shneiderman [5] has simplified the abundant models in
this area (e.g., Couger and Cave) with a clear model of 4 general
activities and 8 tasks in creation for individuals, which we can
lean on as another framework for co-creation in co-learning.

Collect Relate Create Distribute

Searching, Consulting Thinking, Disseminating
Visualizing Others Exploring,
Composing,
Reviewing

Tools and functions won’t be clear cut between areas. For ex-
ample, some tools are more focused on being generative, or for
creating content. Wikis, Etherpad, Google docs, and others usu-
ally have a commenting/talk page element, yet generating content
is the primary goal and discursive/consultative functions are in
service of that. Some tools are discursive, or focused on working
together for the creative element of “relating” above – Blackboard
Collaborate, the social media class room forums, etc.

Skill Building (Cognitive, a la Bloom’s Taxonomy, see below)

Given that we are exploring learning, we can look to Bloom’s
Taxonomy (revised, see [9]) for guidance as to how we can look
at knowledge support. Starting at the bottom, we have:

• Remembering, as a base;
• Understanding,
• Applying,
• Analyzing,
• Evaluating, and then, at the top,
• Creating.

We could put “search” in the Remembering category above. Oth-

ers contest that Search, done well, embraces most of the Bloom’s
P T 223

elements above. Samantha Penney has created a B’ D

 T P infographic, describing tools for learn-
ing, which you may want to check out.

Use Cases (I want to….)

Technologies can be outlined according to the need they serve
or use case they fulfill. Examples: If we need to ‘curate’, Pearl
Trees is an option. To ‘publish’ or ‘create’, we can look to a wiki or
wordpress. Other choices might be great in order to ‘collaborate’,
etc.
One challenge is that tools are not that simple. As we look
more closely at the technologies today, we need to reach more
broadly to add multiple tags to them. For example Twitter can be
used for “Convening a group,” for “micro-blogging,” for “research,”
etc.

• Collaborate with a Group

• Create Community
• Curate Information
• Research
• Publish Information
• Create Learning Activities
• Make Something

These plans get more complex, as you are making a group of de-
cisions about tool functionality in order to choose what combina-
tion works for use cases. It may be most useful to use a concept
map (a tech tool) to think about the needs and combinations that
you would bring together to achieve each Use Case or Learning
Module.

Technology Features/Functions
We have not made this easy! There are lots of moving ele-
ments and options here, none of them right for everything, and
some of them fabulous for specific functions and needs. Some
have the low thresholds but may not be broad in scope. Some are
224 P T

broad for many uses; others are specific task-oriented tools. That
is some of the charm and frustration.
Weaving all of the above together, we have brought together
a shared taxonomy for us to discuss and think about co-learning
technology features and functions, which we present as an ap-
pendix below. This connects various technology features within
an expanded version of Ben Shneiderman’s creativity support
tools framework. We’ve created this linked toolset with multi-
ple tags, hopefully making it easier for you to evaluate which
tool suits best the necessities of the group. Please consider this
a starting point for your own connected exploration.
Weaving all of these frameworks together, we have brought
together a shared taxonomy for us to discuss and think about co-
learning technology features and functions. We have connected
various technology features with an expanded version of Ben
Shneiderman’s creativity support tools framework for the linked
resource guide. For convenience and to help keep it up to date,
we’re publishing this resource  G D. We present an
overview in an appendix.

References
1. Schein, E. H. (1997). Organizational learning as cognitive
re-definition: Coercive persuasion revisited. Cambridge, MA:
Society for Organizational Learning.

2. Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

3. Compeau, D.R., & Higgins, C.A. (1995, June). Computer

Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test.
MIS Quarterly, 19, (2), 189-211.

4. Te’eni, D. (2006). Designs that fit: An overview of fit con-

ceptualizations in HCI. In Human-Computer Interaction and
Management Information Systems: Foundations, edited by
P. Zhang and D. Galletta, pp. 205-221, Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe.
P T 225

5. Shneiderman, B. (2002). Creativity support tools. Commun.

ACM 45, 10 (October 2002), 116-120.

6. Resnick, M, Myers, B, Nakakoji, K, Shneiderman, B, Pausch,

R, Selker, T. & Eisenberg, M (2005). D  
    . Institute for Soft-
ware Research. Paper 816.

7. Dourish, P. & Bellotti, V. (1992). Awareness and coordina-

tion in shared workspaces. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM
conference on Computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW
’92). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 107-114.

8. Baecker, R., G, J., B, W., & G, & (eds.)
(1995): Readings in Human-Computer Interaction: Toward
the Year 2000. New York, NY: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers

9. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A tax-

onomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of
Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edi-
tion. New York, NY: Longman.
226 P T

Appendix: Features and Functions

Activities & Tasks Features & Functions
Planning/Designing

• Communicating • Convening a group

• Deciding and Creating Alternatives • Planning a course/structure (assem-
bling a syllabus, designing a learning ac-
tivity)
• Designing self-assessment (group and
individual)
• Setting individual and group goals
• Brainstorming
• Visualizing
Collect/Share

• Searching • Search
• Visualizing • Social Bookmarking
• Creating/Finding Taxonomies (shared
keywords, domain-based keywords)
• Programming Toolsets
• Collaborative reading
• Collaborative note-taking
• Curation Tools
• Gathering information (e.g., capturing
audio, video, text)
• Surveys and Questionnaires
Relate

• Consulting Others from the Outside • Qualitative research

• Quantitative research
Communication

• Connecting with Others in the Group • Project Planning - Scheduling

• Voice/Video Conferencing Services
• Group Email / Forum Messaging Ser-
vices
• File Sharing Service (cloud based)
• Screen Capturing and Screen Casting
• Presentation and Document Sharing
Co-Create

• Thinking (Free Association) • Learning Management Systems

• Exploring • Document Collaboration and Editing
• Composing • Visualizing Information for analysis and
• Reviewing synthesis (concept maps, data visualiza-
tion)
Distribute/Action

• Disseminating • Publishing Platforms (traditional pub-

lishing, social media/sharing distribu-
tion)
• Visualization (for presentation)
Feedback

• Listening • Social Monitoring

P T 227
  29

FORUMS

Author: Howard Rheingold

Forums are web-based communication media that en-

able groups of people to conduct organized multime-
dia discussions about multiple topics over a period of
time. Selecting the right kind of platform for forum
conversations is important, as is know-how about fa-
cilitating ongoing conversations online. Forums can
be a powerful co-learning tool for people who may
have never met face-to-face and could be located in
different time zones, but who share an interest in co-
learning. Asynchronous media such as forums (or
simple email distribution lists or G D) can
be an important part of a co-learning toolkit that also
includes synchronous media from face-to-face mee-
tups to G+ H or webinars via B
 C, A C, or the open
source webconferencing tool, B B B (dis-
cussed a little later in the handbook).

What is a forum and why should a group use it?

A forum, also known as a message board, , threaded dis-
cussion, or conferencing system, affords asynchronous, many-to-
many, multimedia discussions for large groups of people over a
period of time. That means that people can read and write their
parts of the discussion on their own schedule, that everyone in
a group can communicate with everyone else, and that graphics,
sounds, and videos can accompany text. The best forums index
discussion threads by topic, title, tag, date,and/or author and also
keep track of which threads and entries (also known as posts) each

229
230 F

logged-in participant has already read, making it possible to click

on a “show me all the new posts and threads” link each time a par-
ticipant logs in. This particular form of conversational medium
meets the need for organizing conversations after they reach a
certain level of complexity. For example, if twenty people want
to discuss five subjects over ten days, and each person makes one
comment on each subject every day, that makes for one thousand
messages in each participant’s mailbox. On email lists, when the
conversation drifts from the original topic, the subject line usually
does not change, so it makes it difficult to find particular discus-
sions later.
Forums make possible a new kind of group discussion that un-
folds over days, weeks, and months, in a variety of media. While
blogs are primarily about individual voice, forms can be seen as
the voice of a group. The best forum threads are not serial col-
lections of individual essays, but constitute a kind of discourse
where the discussion becomes more than the sum of its individual
posts. Each participant takes into account what others have said,
builds on previous posts, poses and answers questions of others,
summarize, distill, and concludes.
This short piece on     
is useful, as is this short piece on     
. Lively forums with substantial conversation can glue
together the disparate parts of a peeragogy group – the sometimes
geographically dispersed participants, texts, synchronous chats,
blogs, wikis and other co-learning tools and elements. Forum
conversations are an art in themselves and forums for learning
communities are a specific genre. Reading the resources linked
here – and communicating about them – can help any peeragogy
group get its forums off to a good start

How to start fruitful forum discussions:

In most contexts, starting a forum with a topic thread for in-
troductions tends to foster the sense of community needed for
valuable conversations. T       
 offers general advice. In addition to in-
F 231

troductions, it is often helpful to start a topic thread about which

new topic threads to create – when everybody has the power to
start a new thread and not everybody knows how forums work,
a confusing duplication of conversations can result, so it can be
most useful to make the selection of new topic threads a group
exercise. A topic thread to ask questions about how to use the
forum can prevent a proliferation of duplicate questions. It helps
to begin a forum with a few topic threads that invite participa-
tion in the context of the group’s shared interest “Who is your
favorite photographer” for a group of photographers, for exam-
ple, or “evolution of human intelligence” for a group interested in
evolution and/or human intelligence. Ask questions, invite candi-
date responses to a challenge, make a provocative statement and
ask for reactions.
Whether or not you use a rubric for assessing individual par-
ticipants’ forum posts, this guide to     
 by one professor can help convey the difference between
a good and a poor forum conversation:

4 Points - The posting(s) integrates multiple viewpoints and

weaves both class readings and other participants’ postings into
their discussion of the subject.
3 Points - The posting(s) builds upon the ideas of another par-
ticipant or two, and digs deeper into the question(s) posed by the
instructor.
2 Points - A single posting that does not interact with or in-
corporate the ideas of other participants’ comments.
1 Point - A simple “me too” comment that neither expands the
conversation nor demonstrates any degree of reflection by the
student.
0 Points - No comment.

Selecting a forum platform

• You don’t want a forum for discussions among two or three
people; you do want a forum for discussions among half a
dozen or five thousand people.
232 F

• You don’t want a forum for exchanges of short duration (an

hour, a day or two) among any number of people; you do
want a forum for ongoing conversations that can continue
for months.

• You don’t want a forum if blogs with comment threads will

do – blogs with comments afford group discourse, but is not
easily indexed and discourse gets complicated with more
than a dozen or so bloggers and commenters.

If you do want to select a platform for forum discourse, you will

want to decide whether you have the technical expertise available
to install the software on your own server or whether you want
to look for a hosted solution. Cost is an issue.
Fortunately, an online forum maven by the name of D
W has been keeping an up-to-date list of available software
and services for more than a decade:

• F S   W

• F  M B H S

These 2003        by Howard

Rheingold can be helpful. If blogs with comments afford a kind of
networked individualistic discourse, and video conferencing em-
ulates face-to-face meeting, forums can be seen as a channel for
expression of the group voice. When people react to and build
on each other’s comments, they can learn to act as a collective
intelligence as well as a collection of individuals who are commu-
nicating in order to learn.
  30

WIKI

Author: Régis Barondeau

In the context of P2P-learning, a wiki platform can be a useful

and powerful collaboration tool. This section will help you un-
derstand what a wiki is and what it is not, why you should use
it, how to choose a wiki engine and finally how you could use it
in a P2P context. Some examples of P2P-learning projects run on
wikis will help you see the potential of the tool.

What is a wiki?
For W C father of the wiki, “a wiki is a freely
expandable collection of interlinked Web ‘pages’, a hypertext sys-
tem for storing and modifying information - a database, where
each page is easily editable by any user with a forms-capable Web
browser client” [1].
According to Wikipedia : “a wiki is a website whose users
can add, modify, or delete its content via a web browser using a
simplified markup language or a rich-text editor” [2].
You can watch this CommonCraft video    
 to better understand what a wiki is.

What differentiates the wiki from other co-editing

tools?
The previous definitions show that a wiki is a “website,” in
other words it is composed of pages that are connected together
by hyperlinks.In additiont every authorized person (not all wikis
are totally open like Wikipedia) can edit the pages from a web
browser, reducing time and space constrains. In case one saves a

233
234 W

mistake or for any other reason would like to go back to a previ-

ous version, a feature called “history” allows users to see previous
versions and to roll back any of them. This version history allows
also to compare versions avoiding the cluttered of the “commen-
taries rainbow” we are used too in popular Word processors. For
example if you work on a wiki page, and come back later on, you
will be able to catch up by comparing your last version with the
lastest version of someone else.
Tools like G D or E are design to enable co-
editing on a single document. This can be seen as a “wiki way” of
working on a document as it is web based and includes version-
ing. But it is not a wiki because a single document is not a website.
Those tools offer realtime collaboration which wikis do not and
are so far easier to use for beginners as they work in WYSIWYG
mode, which many wikis do not support. However, the advanced
features    make it a more powerful tool.
In summary, tools like Googles Docs or Etherpad are a great way
to quickly collaborate (synchronously, asynchronously, or a mix-
ture of both) on a single document for free, with a low barrier to
entry and no technical support. (Note that Etherpad does have a
“wiki-links” plugin that can allow it to be used in a more wiki-like
way; H is another real-time editing tool that prominently
features linking – and it claims to be “the best wiki ever”.)
Using a real wiki engine is more interesting for bigger projects
and allows a huge number of users to collaborate on the same plat-
form. A wiki reduces the coordination complication as e-mails
exchanges are no more needed to coordinate a project. On the
other hand it can help us deal with complexity ([3], [4]) espe-
cially if you put basic simple rules in place like the Wikipedia’s
    to allow every participant to share her
or his ideas.
Going back to the continuum we talked about before, some
tools like Moodle, SharePoint, WordPress, Drupal or others have
build in wiki features. Those features can be good but will
typically not be as good for wiki-building purposes as a well-
developed special-purpose wiki engine. In other words, those
tools main focus is not the wiki, which is only a secondary fea-
W 235

ture. When you choose a real wiki engine like M, T,
F, etc., the wiki will be your platform, not a feature of it.
For example if you start a wiki activity in a Moodle course, this
wiki will be only visible to a specific group of students and search-
able only to those students. On the other hand if your learning
platform is a wiki, the whole platform will be searchable to all
members regarding their permissions. We are not saying here
that a wiki is better than other tools but if you need a wiki engine
to address your needs you may consider going with a strong wiki
engine rather than a “micro-wiki” engine embedded in an other
tool.

Why use a wiki?

Those are the main reasons you should consider a wiki for
your peer learning projects :

• To reduce coordination complication by having a central

and always up to date place to store your content. You will
reduce e-mail usage drasticly, and have access to your con-
tent from everywhere using any operating system.
• To keep track of the evolution of your project and be able to
view or roll back any previous version of a wiki page using
the history feature.
• To make links between wiki pages to connect ideas and peo-
ple but also make links to external URL’s. This last possi-
bility is very handy to cite your sources.
• To deal with complexity. As a wiki allows anyone to con-
tribute, if you set some easy rules like Wikipedia’s NPOV
(Neutral Point of View), you will be able to catch more com-
plexity as you will allow everyone to express his or her
opinion. Wikis also integrate a forum or comment feature
that will help you solve editing conflicts.
• To deal with work in progress. A wiki is a great tool to
capture an on going work.
236 W

• To support transparency by letting every members of the

community see what others are doing.
• To support a network structure as a wiki is by essence an
horizontal tool.

Using hyperlinks, you can…

Gérard Ayache: “…jump by a single click from one

network node to another, from a computer to an-
other, from one piece of information to another, from
one universe to another, from one brain to another.”
(Translated from [5].)

How to choose a wiki engine?

You will find more than a hundred different wiki engines.
The first main distinction is between open source ones that
are free to download and commercial ones you will have to pay
for. You will find powerful engines on both sides open source and
commercial. Sometimes the open source ones look less polished
at first sight but are backed by a strong community and offer a
lot of customization possibilities. The commercial are sold like a
package, they are nicely presented but often they offer less cus-
tomization on the user side and additional feature or custom made
tools will cost you an extra fee.
The second distinction that we can make is between wiki
farms and self-hosted wikis. The   is a hosting service
you can find for both open source or commercial wikis. The goal
of those farms is to simplify the hosting of individual wikis. If
you don’t want to choose a wiki farm hosting, you will have to
host the wiki on your own server. This will give you more lati-
tude and data privacy but will require more technical skills and
cost you maintenance fees.
The W web site will help you choose the best wiki
for your needs. It allows you to compare the features of more
than a hundred wiki engines. H is the top ten list of the best
wiki engines by Ward Cunningham.
W 237

How can a wiki be useful in a peeragogy project?

A wiki is a good tool collaborative projects and a specially
suited for work in progress as you can easily track changes using
the history, compare those version and if necessary roll back a
previous versions. In other words, nothing gets lost.
Here are some ideas about how to use a wiki in a peeragogy
project :

• Use a wiki as your learning platform. It can also support

M O O C (MOOC). A wiki will help
you organize your  . You can choose to
give access to your wiki only to the project participants or
open it to the public like W. Using hyperlinking,
you will operationalize the theory of  by con-
necting nodes together. As a learning platform wikis are
powerful because you can easily see what others are doing,
share with them, get inspired, merge ideas or link to ideas.
In other words, it creates emulation between learners. For
additional ressources about wiki in education follow this
D .

• Manage your peeragogy project. A wiki is an excellent

tool for project collaboration. Above all, the wiki can be a
central place for peer learners to write or link to content.
Even if you use several technologies to run your project as
we did to write this handbook, at the end of the day, all the
content can be centralized on a wiki using direct writing
on wiki pages or hyperlinks. This way members can access
the content from anywhere and from any device connected
to the internet using any platform or application and they
will always see the most recent version while being able
to browse through the versions history to understand what
has changed since their last visit.

• Publish your project. As a wiki is a website you can eas-

ily use it to show your work to the world. Regarding web
238 W

design, don’t forget that a wiki can look way better than a
Wikipedia page if you customize it

Examples of peeragogy projects run on wikis

A is a wiki site for collaborative solutions in 
,  reduction and  
 through the use of sound  and 
 and the sharing of wisdom and  informa-
tion. The site is open to stakeholders to find, create and improve
scalable and adaptable solutions.
T is a peeragogy project run on a wiki that gives new-
comers a place to learn about Wikipedia culture and get feedback
from experienced Wikipedians.

What are the best practices when using a wiki?

• Cofacilitation – help each other learn, help each other ad-
minister
• Self-election – enable people to choose what they want to
work on, at their own pace, in their own way
• Communication – use comment threads and talk pages to
discuss wiki changes
• Documenting changes – most wikis enable editors to write
very brief descriptions of their edits
• Rules – keep rules at a minimum level to avoid chaos with-
out constraining creativity
• Fun – make it fun for people to contribute

References
1. Leuf, Bo, et Ward, Cunningham. 2001. The Wiki way :
quick collaboration on the Web. Boston: Addison-Wesley,
xxiii, 435 p. p.14
W 239

2. W on Wikipedia

3. Andrus, Calvin D. 2005. T   

   T    . Stud-
ies in Intelligence. vol. 49, no 3. Online :

4. Barondeau, Régis. 2010. L    

 . École des Sciences de la Gestion, Université du
Québec à Montréal, 180 pp.

5. Ayache, Gérard. 2008. Homo sapiens 2.0 : introduction à

une histoire naturelle de l’hyperinformation. Paris: Milo,
284 p. p.179
  31

REAL-TIME MEETINGS

Author: Howard Rheingold

Summary
Web services that enable broadband-connected learners to
communicate in real time via audio, video, slides, whiteboards,
chat, and screen-sharing enable learning groups to add some of
the audio-visual dimensions familiar from synchronous face-to-
face communication to otherwise asynchronous platforms such
as forums, blogs, and wikis. This article includes resources for
finding and evaluating appropriate for-free or for-fee platforms,
tips on participative activities for real-time meetings, and sugges-
tions for blending real-time and asynchronous media.

Real-time meeting media

The Peeragogy Handbook was conceived and constructed by a
group of people on four continents who had not met and had not
known about each other before we began meeting online. The
process involves asynchronous media, including forums, wikis,
social bookmarking groups, and Wordpress, but it probably would
never have cohered into a group capable of collective action if it
had not been for the real-time meetings where we were able to
see each other’s faces, hear each other’s voices, use a whiteboard
as an anonymous agenda-generator, exchange links in chat, show
each other examples through screen-sharing. Together, the asyn-
chronous and real-time media enabled us to begin to see ourselves
as an effective group. We used both real-time and asynchronous
tools to work out processes for creating, refining, and publishing
the Handbook, to divide labor, decide on platforms and processes,
to collaboratively compose and edit articles, and to design and add

241
242 R M

graphical and video elements. In particular, we used the B

 C platform, a web-service that enables up to
50 people at a time to meet in a multimedia, recordable, meeting
room for around $500/year. We’ve experimented with other paid
platforms, such as A C (about the same price as Col-
laborate), and when we meet in groups of ten or less, we often
use the free and recordable G+ H service. Smaller
groups also use S or free telephone conferencing services.
M is an open source audio-only tool that is popular with
gamers. We’re watching the development of B B B,
a free and open-source real-time meeting platform, as it devel-
ops the full suite of tools that are currently only available for a
fee. Dozens of other free, ad-supported and/or freemium web-
conferencing systems such as B M and DD can be
found in lists like H R’ and R G’s. Free
phone conferencing services provide another technological “low-
est common denominator”: some provide a few extras like down-
loadable recordings.

Features of real-time meeting platforms

There are many free services for chat, screen-sharing, white-
boards, and video conferencing, but combining all these compo-
R M 243

nents in separate panes of the same screen (preferably) or as sepa-

rate tabs of a browser can have a powerful synchronizing and har-
monizing effect on the group. The features to look for in meeting
platforms include:
Audio and video: Choose platforms that enable voice-over-
internet-protocol (VOIP) and easy ways for participants to con-
figure their microphones and speakers. Today’s webcams, to-
gether with adequate lighting and a broadband connection, enable
a number of people to be visible at the same time. In Blackboard
Collaborate, the person who is speaking at a given moment is vis-
ible in the largest video pane, while other participants are avail-
able in smaller video windows. Audio and video convey much
more of a human dimension than text communications alone. A
group of people who have seen and heard each other online are
able to work together via asynchronous media such as forums and
wikis more effectively. Online face-to-face meetings are often the
best way for a group to argue constructively and decide on crit-
ical issues. Forums and email are comparatively bad choices for
distributed decison-making.
Slide pushing: The best platforms will convert .ppt or .pdf files for
sequential display. With the addition of text chat, annotations to
slides, and the ability to “raise your hand” or interrupt with your
voice, an online lecture can be a more multidimensional experi-
ence than even a highly discursive in-person lecture.
Text chat: As a backchannel, a means of quickly exchanging links
to relevant resources, a channel for collaborative note-taking, a
way of communicating with the lecturer and with other partici-
pants, text chat adds a particularly useful dimension to real-time
peeragogical meetings – especially when the division of labor
is explicitly agreed upon in advance. We’ve found that even in
meetings that use the real-time collaborative editor E for
collaborative note taking, participants may gravitate toward the
built-in chat box for discussion.
Screen sharing: The ability of participants to show each other
what is on their screens becomes especially important in peer
244 R M

learning, where we all have some things to show each other.

Web tours: An alternative to screen-sharing is the ability to dis-
play the same web page(s) to all participants by entering URLs.
Interactive whiteboards: A shared space that enables partici-
pants to enter text, drawings, shapes, colors, to move and re-
size media, and to import graphic content – especially if it allows
anonymous actions – can foster the feeling of participating in a
collective intelligence. Collaborative anonymous mind-mapping
of the discussion is one technique to try with whiteboards. The
whiteboard can also be used to generate an emergent agenda for
an “un-meeting”.

Configuring Google+ Hangout - a free alternative

for up to 10 people
For up to 10 people, each equipped with a webcam, micro-
phone, and broadband connection, G+ H can pro-
vide high-quality audio-video conferencing. By enabling the text-
chat feature and adding Google Docs (text documents, presen-
tations, or spreadsheets), screensharing, and SketchUp (white-
board), it is possible to emulate most of what the commercial
services offer. Adobe Connect and Blackboard Collaborate cur-
rently have the user-interface advantage of displaying chat, video,
whiteboard/slides as resizable panes on one screen; at present, the
free Google services can provide a powerful extension of the ba-
sic audio-video platform, but participants have to shift between
different tabs or windows in the browser. Note that it is possible
to   H     YT, again at no
cost to the user. We’ve used this tool extensively in the Peeragogy
project.

Suggestions for real-time meetings

In the nine online courses I have facilitated, the emphasis on
co-learning encouraged participants to suggest and shape active
roles during real-time meetings. By creating and taking on roles,
R M 245

and shifting from role to role, participants engage in a kind of col-

lective learning about collective learning which can be as pleasur-
able as well as useful. Typically we first brainstorm, then analyze,
then organize and present the knowledge that we discover, con-
struct, and ultimately convey together.

Roles for participants in real-time meetings

• Searchers: search the web for references mentioned during
the session and other resources relevant to the discussion,
and publish the URLs in the text chat

• Contextualizers: add two or three sentences of contextual

description for each URL

• Summarizers: note main points made through text chat.

• Lexicographers: identify and collaboratively define words

and phrases on a wiki page.

• Mappers: keep track of top level and secondary level cate-

gories and help the group mindmapping exercise at the end
of the session.

• Curators: compile the summaries, links to the lexicon and

mindmaps, contextualized resources, on a single wiki page.

• Emergent Agendas: using the whiteboard for anonymous

nomination and preference polling for agenda items, with
voice, video, and text-chat channels for discussing nomina-
tions, a group can quickly set its own agenda for the real-
time session.

The Paragogical Action Review

Charlie Danoff and Joe Corneli slightly modified the US
Army’s “After Action Review” into a technique for evaluating
peer learning as it happens. The five steps in the “PAR” are:
246 R M

1. Review what was supposed to happen

2. Establish what is happening

3. Determine what’s right and wrong with what we are doing

4. What did we learn or change?

5. What else should we change going forward?

Participants can run through these steps during live meetings to

reassess the medium, the readings, the group dynamics, or any
other choices that have learning relevance. The focus in the PAR
is on change: as such, it provides a simple way to help implement
the “double loop learning” described Chris Argris [1].

Reference
1. Argyris, Chris. “T     .”
Harvard Business Review, 69.3, 1991.
 Part X

Resources
  32

HOW TO GET INVOLVED IN THE PEERAGOGY

PROJECT

This page is for people who want to help develop/improve this

handbook.
If you want to get involved, write to H R at
@..
Illustrations by A L.

Hello and welcome!

The peeragogy project was kicked off around the time of
H R’ January 23, 2012 R L at UC
Berkeley on Social Media and Peer Learning: From Mediated Peda-
gogy to Peeragogy. We have put together a handbook about peer
learning: you’re reading it – maybe on  , or in your
hammock with the beverage of your choice and our   
 paperback. Or maybe you grabbed our  PDF or some
other remixed version in some other format or flavor from some
other place (which would be cool!).
But: there’s still more work to be done. We created this page
because you might be interested in getting involved in improv-
ing the book or furthering the project in other ways. If so, we’re
happy to have you aboard!
What you do here is largely up to you. Asking questions is
actually extremely helpful: there’s almost always someone in our
G+  who would be happy to try to answer them,

249
250 H   

or refer you to someone else who can. Or just poke around the
public pages on peeragogy.org and leave a comment or two. Bet-
ter still, find an area where you feel knowledgeable – or are will-
ing to learn – and start writing (or filming, dancing, drawing,
building, etc.).

The goal we have in mind for our book is for it be a useful

guide to peer learning! To achieve that goal we have in mind
multiple opportunities for peers to contribute:

• Once we get to know you a little bit we’ll be happy to give

you a login on peeragogy.org and you can start editing and
improving this.
• You can go right ahead and post some links to relevant re-
sources, either in comments here, or in the G+ or SMC.
• Write the text for a new sub-section (this page was once
“new” – but it’s been revised many times by now!).
• We’re particularly interested in case studies about Peera-
gogy in Action!
• Organize a team to tackle a larger section or topic.
• Make a video (like these on our YT C),
• Take notes of live meetings, or   ,
• Organize a newsletter for your group or the whole team,
• Add general purpose bookmarks to  D , or
post comments and editorial notes about peeragogy.org in
 ; and
H    251

• Discuss peer learning matters and this handbook informally

with us and with others!

It’s up to you. Instead of worrying too much about the rules, join
our conversations, take advantage of the digital memory of the
forum to rewind the conversation all the way to the beginning
(if you want to go that far), listen in for a little bit if you want to,
and jump in whenever you’re ready. We won’t know what you’re
up to until you speak up. You can have a look at the outstanding
tasks and teams that are listed on  G D: our roadmap
is a useful shared resource too. You can add to these at any time.
We regularly use Google+, Google Hangouts, forums, and
email to communicate asynchronously and pretty much continu-
ously. We also meet irregularly as a group for synchronous audio-
video sessions. Further details about all these methods of commu-
nication can be found below.
In short: here’s how it works:
252 H   

Questions?
If you have questions, that’s good! Use Google+ or the forums,
post a comment on peeragogy.org, email the team energy center
if you know who that is, or email @..
  33

PEERAGOGY IN ACTION

We have been writing the missing manual for peer-produced

peer learning - the “Peeragogy Handbook” (peeragogy.org).
Throughout the building of this work, we, ourselves peer learners
in this quest, have been mindful of these four questions:

1. How does a motivated group of self-learners choose a subject

or skill to learn?

2. How can this group identify and select the best learning re-
sources about that topic?

3. How will these learners identify and select the appropriate

technology and communications tools and platforms to ac-
complish their learning goal?

4. What does the group need to know about learning theory and
practice to put together a successful peer-learning program?

It is clear to us that the techniques of peer production that have

built and continue to improve Wikipedia and GNU/Linux have
yet to fully demonstrate their power in education. We believe
that the Peeragogy Handbook can help change that by building a
distributed community of peer learners/educators, and a strongly
vetted collection of best practices. Our project complements oth-
ers’ work on sites like Wikiversity and P2PU, and builds upon un-
derstandings that have developed informally in distributed com-
munities of hobbyists and professionals, as well as in (and beyond)
the classrooms of generations of passionate educators. Here, we
present Peeragogy in Action, a project guide in four parts. Each
part relates to one or more sections of our handbook, and sug-
gests activities to try while you explore peer learning. These ac-
tivities are designed for flexible use by widely distributed groups,

253
254 P  A

collaborating via a light-weight infrastructure. Participants may

be educators, community organizers, designers, hackers, dancers,
students, seasoned peeragogues, or first-timers. The guide should
be useful for groups who want to build a strong collaboration, as
well as to facilitators or theorists who want to hone their practice
or approach. Together, we will use our various talents to build
effective methods and models for peer produced peer learning.
Let’s get started!

Setting the initial challenge and building a framework for

accountability among participants is an important starting
point.
Activity – Come up with a plan for your work and an agree-
ment, or informal contract, for your group. You can use the sug-
gestions in this guide as a starting point, but your first task is to
revise the plan to suit your needs. It might be helpful to ask: What
are you interested in learning? What is your primary intended
outcome? What problem do you hope to solve? How collabo-
rative does your project need to be? How will the participants’
expertise in the topic vary? What sort of support will you and
other participants require? What problems won’t you solve?
Technology – Familiarize yourself with the collaboration tools
you intend to use (e.g. Wordpress, Git and LATEX, YouTube, GIMP,
a public wiki, a private forum, or something else) and create a
first post, edit, or video introducing yourself and your project(s)
to others in the worldwide peeragogy community.
P  A 255

Suggested Resources – The Peeragogy Handbook, parts ?? (‘In-

troduction’) and ?? (‘Peer Learning’). You may also want to work
through a short lesson called I P, from the
early days before the Peeragogy project was convened. For a suc-
cinct theoretical treatment, please refer to our literature review,
which we have adapted into a W .
Further Reading – Boud, D. and Lee, A. (2005). ‘Peer learning’
as pedagogic discourse for research education. Studies in Higher
Education, 30(5):501–516.
Observations from the Peeragogy project – We had a fairly weak
project structure at the outset, which yielded mixed results. One
participant said: “I definitely think I do better when presented
with a framework or scaffold to use for participation or content
development.” Yet the same person wrote with enthusiasm about
models of entrepreneurship, saying she was “freed of the require-
ment or need for an entrepreneurial visionary.” In short,

Other people can support you in achieving your goal and

make the work more fun too.
Activity – Write an invitation to someone who can help as
a co-facilitator on your project. Clarify what you hope to learn
from them and what your project has to offer. Helpful questions
to consider as you think about who to invite: What resources are
available or missing? What do you already have that you can
build on? How will you find the necessary resources? Who else
256 P  A

is interested in these kinds of challenges? Go through the these

questions again when you have a small group, and come up with
a list of more people you’d like to invite or consult with as the
project progresses.
Technology – Identify tools that could potentially be useful
during the project, even if it’s new to you. Start learning how to
use them. Connect with people in other locales who share similar
interests or know the tools.
Suggested resources – The Peeragogy Handbook, parts ??
(‘Convening a Group’) and ?? (‘Organizing a Learning Context’).
Recommended Reading – Schmidt, J. Philipp. (2009).
Commons-Based Peer Production and education. Free Culture
Research Workshop Harvard University, 23 October 2009.
Observations from the Peeragogy project – We used a strat-
egy of “open enrollment.” New people were welcome to join the
project at any time. We also encouraged people to either stay in-
volved or withdraw; several times over the first year, we required
participants to explicitly reaffirm interest in order to stay regis-
tered in the forum and mailing list.

Solidifying your work plan and learning strategy together

with concrete measures for ‘success’ can move the project for-
ward significantly.
Activity – Distill your ideas by writing an essay, making visual
sketches, or creating a short video to communicate the unique
P  A 257

plans for organization and evaluation that your group will use. By
this time, you should have identified which aspects of the project
need to be refined or expanded. Dive in!
Technology – Take time to mentor others or be mentored by
someone, meeting up in person or online. Pair up with someone
else and share knowledge together about one or more tools. You
can discuss some of the difficulties that you’ve encountered, or
teach a beginner some tricks.
Suggested resources – The Peeragogy Handbook, parts ?? (‘Co-
Facilitation and Co-Working’), ?? (‘Assessment’), and part ??
(‘Patterns, Use cases, and Examples’).
Recommended reading – Argyris, Chris. “Teaching smart peo-
ple how to learn.” Harvard Business Review 69.3 (1991); and, Ger-
sick, Connie J.G. “Time and transition in work teams: Toward
a new model of group development.” Academy of Management
Journal 31.1 (1988): 9-41.
Observations from the Peeragogy project – Perhaps one of the
most important roles in the Peeragogy project was the role of the
‘Wrapper’, who prepared and circulated weekly summaries of fo-
rum activity. This helped people stay informed about what was
happening in the project even if they didn’t have time to read
the forums. We’ve also found that small groups of people who
arrange their own meetings are often the most productive.
258 P  A

Wrap up the project with a critical assessment of progress

and directions for future work. Share any changes to this syl-
labus that you think would be useful for future peeragogues!
Activity – Identify the main obstacles you encountered. What
are some goals you were not able to accomplish yet? Did you
foresee these challenges at the outset? How did this project re-
semble or differ from others you’ve worked on? How would you
do things differently in future projects? What would you like to
tackle next?
Writing – Communicate your reflection case. Prepare a short
written or multimedia essay, dealing with your experiences in this
course. Share the results by posting it where others in the broader
Peeragogy project can find it.
‘Extra credit’ – Contribute back to one of the other organi-
sations or projects that helped you on this peeragogical journey.
Think about what you have to offer. Is it a bug fix, a constructive
critique, pictures, translation help, PR, wiki-gnoming or making
a cake? Make it something special, and people will remember you
and thank you for it.
Suggested resources – The Peeragogy Handbook, parts ??
(‘Technologies, Services, and Platforms’) and ?? (‘Resources’).
Recommended reading – Stallman, Richard. “W 
  ” (1992).
Observations from the Peeragogy project – When we were de-
ciding how to license our work, we decided to use CC0, empha-
sizing ‘re-usability’ and hoping that other people would come and
remix the handbook. At the moment, we’re still waiting to see the
first remix edition, but we’re confident that it will come along in
due course. Maybe you’ll be the one who makes it!
P  A 259

Micro-Case Study: The Peeragogy Project, Year 1

Since its conception in early 2012, the Peeragogy Project has
collected over 3700 comments in our discussion forum, and over
200 pages of expository text in the handbook. It has given con-
tributors a new way of thinking about things together. However,
the project has not had the levels of engagement that should be
possible, given the technology available, the global interest in im-
proving education, and the number of thoughful participants who
expressed interest. We hope that the handbook and this accom-
panying syllabus will provide a seed for a new phase of learning,
with many new contributors and new ideas drawn from real-life
applications.

Micro-Case Study: The Peeragogy Project, Year 2

10 new handbook contributors joined in the project’s second
year. We’ve begun a series of weekly Hangouts on Air that have
brought in many additional discussants, all key people who can
help to fulfil peeragogy’s promise. The handbook has been con-
siderably improved through edits and discussion. The next step
for us is putting this work into action in the Peeragogy Accelerator.
  34

RECOMMENDED READING

Which is more fun, skateboarding or physics?

On the subject of fun and boredom
1. Kano, J. (1995/2013). T C  J  E
 by Jigoro Kano.
2. Pale King, unfinished novel, by David Foster Wallace
3. On the Poverty of Student Life, by Mustapha Khayati

How do we know if we’ve won?

1. Forming, Norming, Storming, Performing (from Bruce
Tuckman)
2. The “five-stage e-moderating model” (from Gilly Salmon)
3. I, We, Its, It (from Ken Wilber — for an application in mod-
eling educational systems, see [1])
4. Assimilative, Information Processing, Communicative, Pro-
ductive, Experiential, Adaptive (from Martin Oliver and
Gráinne Conole)
5. Guidance & Support, Communication & Collaboration,
Reflection & Demonstration, Content & Activities (from
Gráinne Conole)
6. Considered in terms of “Learning Power” (Ruth Deakin-
Crick et al.)
7. Multiple intelligences (after Howard Gardner)
8. The associated “mental state” (after Mihaly Csíkszentmihá-
lyi; see picture)

261
262 R R

Motivation
1. Simon Sinek, Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire
Everyone To Take Action, Penguin Books, 2011

Case Study: 5PH1NX

1. Senge, Peter. “The fifth discipline: The art and science of
the learning organization.” New York: Currency Doubleday
(1990).

Patterns
Further readings on patterns
1. T T W  B, by Christopher Alexander.

2. Article, “Manifesto 1991” by Christopher Alexander, Pro-

gressive Architecture, July 1991, pp. 108–112, provides a
brief summary of Alexander’s ideas in the form of a critique
of mainstream architecture. Many of the same sorts of criti-
cal points would carry over to mainstream education. Some
highlights are excerpted .

3. W

4. T O  P T,  F   T

, A T G   L W, Christo-
pher Alexander’s talk at the 1996 ACM Conference on
Object-Oriented Programs, Systems, Languages and Appli-
cations (OOPSLA)

Other related work

1. C M (the F  is available for
free)

2. N R   N E(   

 )
R R 263

3. OpenHatch.org, “an open source community aiming to help

newcomers find their way into free software projects.”

On Newcomers
1. W      
? (sildes by Igor Steinmacher and coauthors)

Antipatterns
1. SW H
2. Bourdieu’s notion of “ ”.
3. T       
  - Christopher Alexander’s more re-
cent work, going beyond the idea of a pattern language.

Convening a Group
1. Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams:
Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y.
Engeström, R. Miettinen & R.-L-. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspec-
tives on activity theory, (pp. 377-404). Cambridge, UK: Cam-
bridge University Press
2. Gersick, C. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: To-
ward a new model of group development. Academy of Man-
agement Journal 31 (Oct.): 9-41.
3. Mimi Ito’s observations about    
 J
4. Rheingold U, MA 
5. Shneiderman, B. (2007). C  : 
   . Commun. ACM
50, 12 (December 2007), 20-32.
6. David de Ugarte, Phyles. (S) (B)
264 R R

7. Scheidel, T. M., & Crowell, L. (1964). Idea development in

small discussion groups. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 50,
140-145.

8. Scheidel, T. M., & Crowell, L. (1979), Discussing and Deciding

- A Desk Book for Group Leaders and Members, Macmillan
Publishing

9. Ozturk and Simsek, “Of Conflict in Virtual Learning Com-

muniities in the Context of a Democratic Pedagogy: A para-
dox or sophism?,” in Proceedings of the Networked Learning
Conference, 2012, Maastricht. V or .

10. Paragogy Handbook, How to Organize a MOOC

11. Cathy Davidson et al., H  C B  C



K-12 Peeragogy
amazing technology tools for your classroom:
• R B

• S T

• C T

• V D

How to develop your PLN:

• D  C T by Rodd Lucier

• TT

Theory & philosophy of connnected learning for classroom

transformation:
• D T
R R 265

• S D

• W R

Adding Structure with Activities

1. T . B B (CC-By-NC-SA) in-
cludes lots of fun activities to try. Can you crack the code
and define new ones that are equally cool?

2. Puzio, R. S. (2005). “On free math and copyright bottle-

necks.” Free Culture and the Digital Library Symposium Pro-
ceedings.

Connectivism in Practice — How to Organize a

MOOC (Massive Open Online Class)
1. Downes & Siemens MOOC 

2. W C I by Stephen Downes

3. A I  C K by Stephen

Downes

4. F  M O O C, by Stephen

Downes

5. RSS

6. C: A L T   D A

by George Siemens

7. A C G

8. R  N by George Siemens

9. R E: C  C by

Dave Cormier

10. K K, a book by George Siemens

266 R R

11. N S, Howard Rheingold (about internal and external

literacies for coping with the ‘always on’ digital era)
12. M O O C: Setting Up (StartTo-
MOOC, Part 1)
13. T MOOC 

Co-Facilitation
1. P E: T  T M; UN In-
teragency Group on Young Peoples Health
2. C F: Advantages & Potential Disadvantages.
J. Willam Pfeifer and John E Johnes
3. S of John Heron’s model of the role of facilitators
4. C R, C C  E, Encyclo-
pedia of Informal Education
5. P M, Study Guides and Strategies
6. CF: T A  C,
Canadian Union of Public Employees
7. B I C W G
8. Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1998) C R’ H S
. J  S, London: Sage
9. 5 P  W, from Wikipedia
10. T  F (2002) US Army Field Manual #FM 7-0
(FM 25-100)
11. L R: P, P, G,
O, by Howard Rheingold
12. R G is a network dedicated to science and re-
search, in which members connect, collaborate and discover
scientific publications, jobs and conferences.
R R 267

13. C  F P S G, by The

Community Tool Box

14. F T, by Villanova University

15. H P C: T R  F  

P L, by Pippa Buchanan

16. R P F: C C

SA, by Dale Vidmar, Southern Oregon Uni-
versity Library

17. E CF, by Everywoman’s Center,

University of Massachussetts

18. “T     ” by Chris Argyris,

Harvard Business Review 69.3, 1991; also published in ex-
panded form as a  with the same name.

Assessment
1. Morgan, C. and M. O’Reilly. (1999). A O 
 . London: Kogan Page Limited.

2. Schmidt, J. P., Geith, C., Håklev, S. and J. Thierstein. (2009).

PTP R  L  O E
. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning. Volume 10, Number 5.

3. L.S. Vygotsky: M  S: D  H

P P

4. R M and J V, E O

, A  O C, Organi-
zation, May 2005, 12: 437-456.
268 R R

Technologies, Services, and Platforms

1. Irene Greif and Sunil Sarin (1987): Data Sharing in Group
Work, ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems,
vol. 5, no. 2, April 1987, pp. 187-211.

2. Irene Greif (ed.) (1988): Computer-Supported Cooperative

Work: A Book of Readings, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kauf-
man.

3. Irene Greif (1988): Remarks in panel discussion on “CSCW:

What does it mean?”, CSCW ‘88. Proceedings of the Confer-
ence on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Septem-
ber 26-28, 1988, Portland, Oregon, ACM, New York, NY.

4. Kamnersgaard, 1988

5. Vessey & Galletta, 1991

6. Norman, 2001, 2003

7. DeSanctis & Pool, 2004

Real-Time Meetings
1. Howard Rheingold’s webconferencing 

Additional Tips from an open source perspective

Care of User:Neophyte on the Teaching Open Source wiki.

1. The Art of Community

2. Open Advice

3. The Open Source Way

R R 269

Forums
1. Rheingold, H. W  ? Social Media Classroom.
2. Rheingold, H. (1998). T A  H G C
 O.
3. Gallagher, E. J. (2006). G  D B
W. Lehigh University.
4. Gallagher, E.J. (2009).S    
. T    . The Academic
Commons.
5. Academic Technology Center. (2010). I  U
 D B. Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Still more recommended reading

On Paragogy
1. Corneli, J. (2010). I P. Lesson plan.
2. Corneli, J. and C. Danoff. (2010/2013). Paragogy. para-
gogy.net

On Learning vs Training
1. Hart, J. (April 20th, 2012). I     BYOL (B
Y O L)    ?
Learning in the Social Space. Jane Hart’s Blog.

On PLNs
1. Rheingold, H. (2010). S T: G
N, C, PLN B. DML Central.
2. Richardson, W. and R. Mancabelli. (2011). P
L N: U  P  C
 T E. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree Press.
270 R R

3. Howard Rheingold’s PLN links on Delicious

A word list for your inner edu-geek

You can read about all of these things on Wikipedia.

1. C

2. S 

3. R 

4. E

5. C

6. C
  35

STYLE GUIDE

This is a How-To Handbook.

Keep it short. The easiest sections to read are those that are
shorter and include some kind of visual (video or image) and have
some personal connection (i.e. they tell a story). For anything
longer, break it up into sub-pages, add visuals, make sure each
sub-page is accessible to someone (who is it?). Think clearly of
this reader, talk to them.

Make it clear. We’ll illustrate this point by example. The orig-

inal full title of the book was “The Peeragogy Handbook: A re-
source for self-organizing self-learners”. But “”
is a technical term, and “self-learner” is a confusing neologism.
We shouldn’t use technical terms unless we explain them. So we
really shouldn’t use it in the first sentence or paragraph, or ti-
tle, of the book because we’ll scare people off or confuse them.
If we want to explain what “self-organization” means and why it
is relevant for peeragogy, then we can take a chapter to do that
much later on in the book. At the same time, we shouldn’t try to
“say the same thing in a simpler way.” We should try to get rid of
the technical concept completely and see what’s left. The easiest
thing to do in such cases is to delete the sentence completely and
start over: when in doubt, speak plainly.

Don’t overdo it with bullet points. Text can be very hard to

read when there are more than a few bullet points included.
Numbered lists should also be used sparingly. It also seems that
when many disjointed bullet points appear, sometimes the au-
thor is really just indexing the main points that are presented
better in someone else’s narrative. Therefor, consider replac-

271
272 S G

ing an entire bulleted list with a reference to someone else’s

book/webpage/chapter. In today’s hyperlinked world, it’s easy
enough for the reader to go elsewhere to get good content (and in-
deed, we should make it easy for them to find the best treatments
around!). It is not very pleasant to have to read a taxonomy.

Include activities. When reading, editing or otherwise working

your way through the book, please make note of any activities
or exercises that come to mind, and share them. We’re always
striving to be more practical and applicable.

Don’t be overly chatty. In our efforts to escape from academia-

speak and simplify the text in the handbook, it’s important to
make sure we are not heading towards the other extreme – be-
ing too conversational. When we’re having a conversation with
someone, we tend to pepper our ideas with transitional or pivotal
phrases (“In any event,” “With that said,” “As I mentioned else-
where,” etc.) that help to keep the talk flowing. We also go off
on brief tangents before making our way back to the main topic,
and sometimes express ourselves in run-on sentences. While this
is perfectly natural in speech, it can be confusing and complex
in written text. Let’s strive for the perfect balance of simple yet
professional writing.

Additional style bonus points

• Avoid double lines after paragraphs; this is a leftover from

the age of typewriters and can create “rivers” of white space.

• Capitalize the first word of each item in a bulleted list, espe-

cially if items include a verb form (this list is an example!).
Punctuate uniformly.

• Capitalize the first word of headings and subheadings;

lower case all others.
S G 273

Format your HTML nicely. We need to be able to process the

content from this Wordpress site and turn it into various for-
mats like LATEX and EPUB. Our automated tools work much better
if pages are formatted with simple and uniform HTML markup.
Some key points:

• Mark up your links: use The Peeragogy Handbook instead

of http://peeragogy.org. It’s best if the link text is somewhat
descriptive.

• Use a numbered list to format your references (see Con-

vening a Group for one example of an article that gets this
right!)

• Use Heading 2 and Heading 3 tags to mark up sections, not

bold text. If you use bold or italics in your paragraphs,
you should check that the markup is actually correct. It
should exactly surround the words that you’re marking up
– <em>like this</em> – and it should not include extra
spaces around marked up words – <em> NOT like this
</em>.

• Be aware that Wordpress does not always add paragraph

tags to your paragraphs.

• Wordpress also tries to replace straight quote marks with

“smart quotes”, but it sometimes doesn’t achieve the aim.
If you notice weird quotemarks (especially in the PDF ver-
sion), you can add smart quote marks by hand.
  36

MEET THE AUTHORS

Bryan Alexander — USA, VT (Au-

thor) I research the ways new tech-
nologies change education, teach-
ing, learning, and scholarship. I’m
passionate about storytelling, gam-
ing, pedagogy, and understanding
the future. My family homesteads
on top of a little mountain, raising
food.

Paul Allison — USA, NY (Author)

Currently, I teach English at the
B A S H. An-
other community that I’m a part
of is the N Y C W
P. I’m the NYC Technology
Liaison for the N W
P. I help to manage Y
V and I co-produce T
T T.

275
276 M  A

María F. Arenas — República Ar-

gentina (Author, Editor) Indepen-
dent consultant researcher on TICS
applied to Learning, Digital Com-
munication, Institutional, Corpo-
rate. On line facilitator tutorship.
Professor on Semiotics, Social Com-
munication, Networking.

Régis Barondeau — Canada (Au-

thor) I build bridges between re-
search, praxeology and technol-
ogy and I become creative “by
finding a likeness between things
which were not thought alike be-
fore” (Bronowski, 1958). I’m inter-
ested in complexity, culture, social
media especially wikis, education,
open government and more.

Doug Breitbart — USA, NJ (Au-

thor, Meeting Support) I a catalyst
and provocateur who has worn the
hats of attorney, consultant, facil-
itator, coach, entrepreneur, father,
husband, student, teacher.
M  A 277

George Brett — USA, VA (Author,

Edior, Meeting Support) Twitter
Bio: “autodidactic techno arsty
craftsy eclecticist.” Many years as a
diplomat for IT technology as ap-
plied to research and education. I’m
a teacher/trainer, consultant, an-
alyst, info ferret, artist, life-long
learner, and member of a great fam-
ily. Current challenges include:
best way to share skills and expe-
riences with others and as a Gen-
Boomer finding more steady work.

Suz Burroughs - USA, CA (Author,

Designer) I enable the connections
between the teacher and learner
in all of us by designing robust,
measurable learning environments
where people share their knowl-
edge and experience with each
other. Learning Designer, Design
Thinking facilitator, Visiting Pro-
fessor of Innovation.

Joe Corneli — U.K. (Author, Edi-

tor) Joe Corneli does research on
the anthropology of modern math-
ematics. He is a member of the
board of directors of the US-based
nonprofit, PlanetMath.org, and a re-
search student at the Knowledge
Media Institute of The Open Uni-
versity, UK.
278 M  A

Jay Cross — USA, CA (Author) Jay

is the Johnny Appleseed of informal
learning. The I T A
, which he chairs, helps cor-
porations and governments use net-
works to accelerate performance.

Charles Jeffrey Danoff — USA, IL

(Author) Charles is the Owner of
Mr. Danof’s Teaching Laboratory,
an Educational Publishing and Ser-
vices firm he established in 2009.
He started co-publishing research
on Paragogy, Peeragogy’s inspira-
tion, in late 2010.

James Folkestad - USA, CO (Au-

thor, Editor, Designer, Devel-
oper) My approach to education has
shifted from an emphasis on my
teaching, to a more central focus
on student learning, and finally to
an activity-systems approach as I
have come to realize that the two
(teacher and learner) are insepara-
ble parts of the learning ecosystem.
M  A 279

John Graves - Australia (Editor)

Founder of SlideSpeech. Graduate
of Singularity University.

Gigi Johnson, EdD — USA, CA

(Author, Developer) I mix formal
learning programs with programs
to help learners begin to work, live,
and create everywhere. My own ad-
ventures include writing, singing,
video, teaching, and parenting 3
teens.

Anna Keune — Germany/Finland

(Co-author, Designer) I design
technology for learning and I like
it. I’m affiliated with the Media Lab
Helsinki, Aalto University School of
Arts, Design and Architecture.
280 M  A

Kyle Larson — FL, USA (Editor)

Kyle Larson is an undergraduate
thesis student at New College of
Florida. His research interests in-
clude composition theory, rhetori-
cal theory, computers and compo-
sition, and pedagogy.

Roland Legrand — Belgium (Au-

thor) I’m a financial journalist,
heavily involved in experimenting
with social media and new forms
for reporting and community con-
versation.

Amanda Lyons — USA, NY De-

signerI am a Visual Practitioner,
Organization Development Consul-
tant & Experiential Educator. I
love helping people communicate
via visual tools that generally in-
clude markers and paper. I think
our education system could benefit
from using visual communication
tools as well as text based methods.
M  A 281

Christopher Neal — USA, WA

(Communications and Media) I am
driven by technology and its abil-
ity to modify virtual communities
and social media, and a passion
for Social:Learn, Social:iA, Situated
Cognition, Social Learning Theory,
Connectivism, etc.

Ted Newcomb — USA, AZ (Author,

Project Management) Happily re-
tired grandpa, curating on digital
culture, sociology of the web; inter-
ested in collaboration and coopera-
tion in digital networks that result
in positive change.

Charlotte Pierce — USA, MA (Edi-

tor, Publisher) Indie publisher who
finds happiness in pushing her lim-
its and seeing them back down.
Augmented her intellect in Rhein-
goldU’s Think-Know Tools course,
then joined the amazing Peeragogy
community, where the plot thick-
ens.
282 M  A

Howard Rheingold — USA, CA

(Author, Editor) Inspired by
Charles Danoff and Joe Corneli’s
work on paragogy, I instigated the
Peeragogy project in order to pro-
vide a resource for self-organizing
self-learners. Learning is my
passion.

Paola Ricaurte — Mexico (Author)

My believe: education and tech-
nology are essential tools for social
change. My challenges: activist,
teacher, mother, immigrant. My
philosophy: I am what I am because
of who we all are.

Fabrizio Terzi — Italy (Inventor,

Designer, Translator) I am in-
volved in social and educational
projects related to public access to
knowledge and cultural diversity. I
am an active member of FSF and the
FTG – working on Free Culture.
M  A 283

Geoff Walker — U.K. (Author) A Further

and Higher Education Lecturer and Tutor,
social networker, e-learning advocate.
  37

LICENSE/WAIVER

These materials are made available under the terms of C

 C 0   instead of a “traditional”
copyleft license. We the undersigned agree to the following,
wherein “this work” refers to “The Peeragogy Handbook” and all
other content posted on peeragogy.org or the original collabora-
tory site, socialmediaclassroom.com/host/peeragogy.

I hereby waive all copyright and related or neighboring

rights together with all associated claims and causes of action
with respect to this work to the extent possible under the law.

Signed:

• Bryan Alexander

• Paul Allison

• Régis Barondeau

• Doug Breitbart

• George Brett

• Suz Burroughs

• Teryl Cartwright

• Joseph Corneli

• Jay Cross

• Charles Jeffrey Danoff

• Julian Elve

285
286 L/W

• María Fernanda

• James Folkestad

• John Glass

• Kathy Gill

• John Graves

• Gigi Johnson

• Anna Keune

• Kyle Larson

• Roland Legrand

• Amanda Lyons

• Christopher Tillman Neal

• Ted Newcomb

• Stephanie Parker

• Charlotte Pierce

• David Preston

• Howard Rheingold

• Paola Ricaurte

• Verena Roberts

• Stephanie Schipper

• Peter Taylor

• Fabrizio Terzi

• Geoff Walker
L/W 287

Note that this waiver does not apply to other works by the above
authors, including works linked to from peeragogy.org. It also
does not apply to embedded content drawn from other sites and
included for the reader’s convenience.
Future contributors: Note also that we will require a similar
copyright waiver agreement from you. That said, the waiver also
means that you are free to do essentially whatever you like with
the content in your own work! Have fun!

How we came to this decision

These Creative Commons license options were proposed by
various members of the community:

• CC Zero - public domain; no restrictions for downstream

users

• CC By-SA - requires downstream users to include attribu-

tion and to license their work in the same way

• CC By-SA-NC - requires downstream users to include attri-

bution, to license their work in the same way and disallows
any commercial use of the content

After a brief discussion, no one was in favor of restricting down-

stream users, so we decided to go with CC0. We agreed that we
would get enough “credit” by having our names on peeragogy.org.
In connection with this discussion, we agreed that we would work
on ways to explicitly build “reusability” into the handbook con-
tent.